Should we the term "security" if a release does not have a CVE associated
with it?
On May 17, 2012 7:45 AM, <philip_at_apache.org> wrote:
> Author: philip
> Date: Thu May 17 11:44:39 2012
> New Revision: 1339559
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1339559&view=rev
> Log:
> * publish/release-notes/release-history.html: Add recent releases.
>
> Modified:
> subversion/site/publish/docs/release-notes/release-history.html
>
> Modified: subversion/site/publish/docs/release-notes/release-history.html
> URL:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/site/publish/docs/release-notes/release-history.html?rev=1339559&r1=1339558&r2=1339559&view=diff
>
> ==============================================================================
> --- subversion/site/publish/docs/release-notes/release-history.html
> (original)
> +++ subversion/site/publish/docs/release-notes/release-history.html Thu
> May 17 11:44:39 2012
> @@ -31,6 +31,27 @@ Subversion 2.0.</p>
>
> <ul>
> <li>
> + <b>Subversion 1.7.5</b> (Thursday, 17 May 2012): Bugfix/security
> release.
> + </li>
> + <li>
> + <b>Subversion 1.7.4</b> (Thursday, 8 March 2012): Bugfix/security
> release.
> + </li>
> + <li>
> + <b>Subversion 1.7.3</b> (Monday, 13 February 2012): Bugfix/security
> release.
> + </li>
> + <li>
> + <b>Subversion 1.7.2</b> (Monday, 5 December 2011): Bugfix/security
> release.
> + </li>
> + <li>
> + <b>Subversion 1.7.1</b> (Sunday, 23 October 2011): Bugfix/security
> release.
> + </li>
> + <li>
> + <b>Subversion 1.7.0</b> (Tuesday, 11 October 2011): Feature and
> bugfix release, see the <a href="/docs/release-notes/1.7.html">release
> notes</a>.
> + </li>
> + <li>
> + <b>Subversion 1.6.18</b> (Thursday, 12 April 2012): Bugfix/security
> release.
> + </li>
> + <li>
> <b>Subversion 1.6.17</b> (Wednesday, 1 June 2011): Bugfix/security
> release.
> </li>
> <li>
>
>
>
Received on 2012-05-17 19:01:44 CEST