[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Security patching and the branching workflow: a new security-updates
From: |
Léo Le Bouter |
Subject: |
Re: Security patching and the branching workflow: a new security-updates branch |
Date: |
Sat, 27 Mar 2021 15:14:18 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Evolution 3.34.2 |
On Sat, 2021-03-27 at 14:56 +0100, zimoun wrote:
> Oh, I am a big boy and I can think whatever I want! :-)
>
> Kidding aside.
...
>
> First, what does it mean «risk»? How do you evaluate it? Is it a
> relative evaluation or an absolute one?
Most if not all users do not want their machines to be compromised or
any side-effects of that.
> Second, I am not arguing that security is not important. I am saying
> that security is important, as important as everything else that is
> also
> important. What does it mean «important»? How do you evaluate
> it? Is it a
> relative evaluation or an absolute one?
Having security-updates branch or any other mechanism to ship security
updates promptly does not mean that the rest is not important.
> Third, I am aligned with Leo’s words [1]. And probably with yours
> too. :-) To me, a better security is not implied by special
> treatments for security fixes but instead a better treatment for the
> updates in general.
Security updates *need* special treatment. We already specially treat
them with grafts because it's an absolute necessity. We already have
private disclosure mailing lists in GNU Guix because security updates
need special treatment.
>
> You are proposing a new branch and Chris and I are saying that this
> branch already exists and is staging. The real question is to know
> how
> staging currently behaves: how many time between 2 merges? how many
> time to rebuild? how many packages are rebuilt between 2
> merges? etc.
> Is it enough? If not, what could be done to improve? etc.
The question whether this is solved by a branch or by making pushing to
master directly big rebuilds more viable, that I do not know, but you
cannot put forward the arguments you've made, they do not work.
Léo
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part