[PATCH 1/4] docs: securityprocess: Don't claim that we have maint branches

Peter Krempa pkrempa at redhat.com
Wed Mar 9 10:06:56 UTC 2022


On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 10:47:45 +0100, Michal Prívozník wrote:
> On 3/9/22 10:09, Peter Krempa wrote:
> > The 'Branch fixing policy' paragraph claims that we have at least one
> > actively maintained stable branch which isn't currently the case.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Krempa <pkrempa at redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  docs/securityprocess.rst | 6 ++----
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/docs/securityprocess.rst b/docs/securityprocess.rst
> > index adddbf76b0..fe64e94f80 100644
> > --- a/docs/securityprocess.rst
> > +++ b/docs/securityprocess.rst
> > @@ -84,8 +84,6 @@ engineers on the security team.
> >  Branch fixing policy
> >  --------------------
> > 
> > -The libvirt community maintains one or more stable release branches at any given
> > -point in time. The security team will aim to publish fixes for GIT master (which
> > -will become the next major release) and each currently maintained stable release
> > -branch. The distro maintainers will be responsible for backporting the
> > +The security team will publish fixes for GIT master (which will become the next
> > +major release). The distro maintainers will be responsible for backporting the
> >  officially published fixes to other release branches where applicable.
> 
> Yeah, we don't really do that, but removing is looks too harsh. Maybe
> mention that we might create a maint branch? OTOH, a crasher we had
> wasn't serious enough for us to create a maint branch:
> 
> https://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2022-March/228906.html
> 
> So in the end, off it goes.

In my previous posting of this patch (sorry forgot to mark it as v2) I
attempted to use vague language to hint that there _might_ be a maint
branch, but Jano pointed out that we didn't really do it for a very long
time:

https://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2022-March/229067.html

I can go with that version, but I agreed that it's unlikely to be
maintaining those.


More information about the libvir-list mailing list