Subject: Re: HEADS UP: XFree86 3.3.6 has been EOLed
To: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
From: James Chacon <jmc@NetBSD.org>
Date: 01/10/2005 21:34:15
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 08:16:02PM -0500, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> [ On Monday, January 10, 2005 at 16:42:03 (-0600), James Chacon wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: HEADS UP: XFree86 3.3.6 has been EOLed
> > On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:32:14PM -0500, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> > > [ On Sunday, January 9, 2005 at 20:15:02 (-0600), James Chacon wrote: ]
> > > > Subject: Re: HEADS UP: XFree86 3.3.6 has been EOLed
> > > >
> > > > It was branched for 1.6.2. Thats the entire reason it's actually on a branch
> > > > today. 1.6.2 was the first release we started doing this.
> > >
> > > Hmmm..... right. But that was a long time ago vs. the HEAD that was
> > > removed recently (in terms of changes that are not on the branch).
> > For changes in the XF3 code? Highly unlikely it's changed much if at all
> > there since it was branched...
> I invite you do do the "cvs rdiff" to see for yourself! :-)
I said "XF3" for a reason. The only changes there were adding sh3 support
(now in XF4 as well) and twm changes. Nothing else is different...
> I should probably note that I do not have any critical security fixes in
> mind here (though there may be some :-) -- this is more a matter of the
> current release maint ultra-conservatism vs. maintaining good usable and
> _current_ releases and so long as 1.6 is not EOL, I would really like to
> see it kept as viable as possible. X11 is more or less just an
> application, especially for those platforms that were using the old
> xsrc, and given the fact I've been tracking and using xsrc-current on
> netbsd-1-6 I don't see any reason why anyone would even think to object
> to merging the just-removed HEAD revisions to the netbsd-1-6 branch.
> Note that I can provide all the necessary distrib/sets/lists diffs to
> anyone interetsted in them.... :-)
No one ever said we wouldn't use XF4 down the road on the branch. Just that
XF3 was removed from the trunk (and as I pointed out, hasn't changed to any
real degree from it's branch/release point).