Should we the term "security" if a release does not have a CVE associated with it? On May 17, 2012 7:45 AM, <phi...@apache.org> wrote:
> Author: philip > Date: Thu May 17 11:44:39 2012 > New Revision: 1339559 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1339559&view=rev > Log: > * publish/release-notes/release-history.html: Add recent releases. > > Modified: > subversion/site/publish/docs/release-notes/release-history.html > > Modified: subversion/site/publish/docs/release-notes/release-history.html > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/site/publish/docs/release-notes/release-history.html?rev=1339559&r1=1339558&r2=1339559&view=diff > > ============================================================================== > --- subversion/site/publish/docs/release-notes/release-history.html > (original) > +++ subversion/site/publish/docs/release-notes/release-history.html Thu > May 17 11:44:39 2012 > @@ -31,6 +31,27 @@ Subversion 2.0.</p> > > <ul> > <li> > + <b>Subversion 1.7.5</b> (Thursday, 17 May 2012): Bugfix/security > release. > + </li> > + <li> > + <b>Subversion 1.7.4</b> (Thursday, 8 March 2012): Bugfix/security > release. > + </li> > + <li> > + <b>Subversion 1.7.3</b> (Monday, 13 February 2012): Bugfix/security > release. > + </li> > + <li> > + <b>Subversion 1.7.2</b> (Monday, 5 December 2011): Bugfix/security > release. > + </li> > + <li> > + <b>Subversion 1.7.1</b> (Sunday, 23 October 2011): Bugfix/security > release. > + </li> > + <li> > + <b>Subversion 1.7.0</b> (Tuesday, 11 October 2011): Feature and > bugfix release, see the <a href="/docs/release-notes/1.7.html">release > notes</a>. > + </li> > + <li> > + <b>Subversion 1.6.18</b> (Thursday, 12 April 2012): Bugfix/security > release. > + </li> > + <li> > <b>Subversion 1.6.17</b> (Wednesday, 1 June 2011): Bugfix/security > release. > </li> > <li> > > >
