On 03/16/10 22:17, Mark Andrews wrote:
> ESV's are supposed to be releases which are stable, no dot-o-itis.
I'm not suggesting that they should be the latter, thus my comment that
what I _thought_ would happen is that once the dot-releases were done in
a given branch the -ESV would start. Frankly
In message <4ba0595b.8090...@dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes:
> On 03/16/10 20:57, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > In message <4ba04e63.8090...@dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes:
> >> I noticed that the patchfix releases of BIND came out today, so
> >> congratulations on that. :) However I was confus
On 03/16/10 20:57, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <4ba04e63.8090...@dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes:
>> I noticed that the patchfix releases of BIND came out today, so
>> congratulations on that. :) However I was confused by the existence of
>> both a 9.6.2-P1 and a 9.6-ESV (with the same cod
In message <4ba04e63.8090...@dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes:
> I noticed that the patchfix releases of BIND came out today, so
> congratulations on that. :) However I was confused by the existence of
> both a 9.6.2-P1 and a 9.6-ESV (with the same code inside). Is 9.6.2-P1
> the last release o
I noticed that the patchfix releases of BIND came out today, so
congratulations on that. :) However I was confused by the existence of
both a 9.6.2-P1 and a 9.6-ESV (with the same code inside). Is 9.6.2-P1
the last release on the 9.6 branch? For the purpose of "following" a
branch in the FreeBSD p
5 matches
Mail list logo
