What a futile and pointless discussion.
> Assuming that is the case, was it 6.3 or 6.1 that was not 'active'
> from the 2nd to the 15th? Conveniently the original 6.3 release dates
> are now censored on the website, but if it had been built for the
> projected date then it would not have needed the 14th patches.
>
>
> --
> Patrick Harper
> paia...@fastmail.com
>
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, at 08:57, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > What changed was that there was a period after 6.3 was pushed out the
> > > door (2-15 April) in which there were effectively three active
> > > releases and the project felt obliged to support 6.1 until 6.3's
> > > projected release date. My previous post attempted to review a
> > > possible workaround, though I suspect this sort of anomaly might not
> > > be practically avoidable.
> >
> > You are making stuff up.
> >
>
