I agree. Your initial response was all I needed, I thought I needed more because I'm an absolutist.
-- Patrick Harper paia...@fastmail.com On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, at 10:28, Theo de Raadt wrote: > 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. > > > > >
