| |||||||||||||
2.6.32.9 Release notes2.6.32.9 Release notesPosted Feb 21, 2010 21:14 UTC (Sun) by ajb (subscriber, #9694)Parent article: 2.6.32.9 Release notes I wonder if it would work better just to mark the non-security patches?
(Log in to post comments)
2.6.32.9 Release notes Posted Feb 22, 2010 1:17 UTC (Mon) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] How on earth would our gracious editor (or anybody else for that matter) make sure the fix has *no* security implications? Besides, this being the patches vetted for inclusion in -stable, it stands to reason that most (all?) are potentially very serious (that is not the same as "all-around security relevant")
2.6.32.9 Release notes Posted Feb 22, 2010 7:16 UTC (Mon) by ajb (subscriber, #9694) [Link] By being conservative. It would always be safe to leave off the mark, if it marks non-security critical patches. Whereas currently many patches which are probably are security critical don't get marked. A non-security-critical mark could probably only be applied to feature additions.
2.6.32.9 Release notes Posted Feb 22, 2010 17:11 UTC (Mon) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] How is "leave off the not-sensitive mark" different from what goes on today? Just to be on the safe side, as a developer/integrator I'd leave it off always... and as a consumer I'd presume all patches in -stable are potentially security sensitive, just like today.
|
|||||||||||||