errata patches vs patch branch

["tim smith" <tims@cqpl.com.au>]

i know not all patches get moved in to errata ( and for good reason ) and that
updating my systems using the patch branch via cvs will give me ALL the latest
updates and fixes, but my question is - does this make a system which only
gets updated via the patches provided in errata less secure/stable then one
updated from the patch branch, and if so to what extent. what level of
importance should be placed on that difference? eg. a system handling medical
records and the transfer of medical records can never be too secure, so it
should be patched via patch branch/cvs where a little samba server only needs
the errata patches.

cheers
Tim Smith
__________________________________________________________________
tim
ICQ#: 146359336
      Current ICQ status:
+  More ways to contact me
__________________________________________________________________

[demime 0.98d removed an attachment of type application/octet-stream which had a name of online?icq=146359336&img=21]