Re: 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,
>
> It will give you all the latest updates that are
>
> critical
> and/or trivial
> and/or deemed worthwhile feeding out

so i take it all patches which have a practical application get an errata
patch? so far i have been applying .patches to my home systems and it runs
great, i can expect the same reliablity and ease of use from the patch
branch? my big fear is updating to suddenly find something is broken.

>
> (we use an internal discussion to decide what goes out, and we are not
> very ameniable towards people suggesting what should be included;
> since doing this stable work takes a lot of developer effort; our goal
> is to NEVER break a stable tree, and that means: full testing must
> happen)
>
> > 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,
>
> potentially, though I doubt it really does.  If something is merged
> into stable, and it has a security or reliability impact, it is almost
> always made available as an errata.  so there, that's probably what
> you wanted to know: "is it errata -> stable... plus more; or is it
> stable and some -> errata".
>
> > 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.
>
> we can't answer that for you ;-)
>
probably a good call