At 06:29 AM 7/10/2008, Oliver Brandmueller wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 03:17:26AM -0700, Xin LI wrote:
> Speaking as my own: Base system needs more conservative QA process,
> e.g. we want to minimize the change, we need to analyst the impact
> (FWIW the security fix would negatively affect heavy traffic sites)
> and document it (i.e. the security advisory), and we want to make the
> change a one-time one (for instance, shall we patch libc's resolver as
> well?), so rushing into a "presumably patched" state would not be a
> very good solution.
I understand the reasons and that surely needs to be taken into account.
Does that imply that the FreeBSD project got the information later than
f.e. M$ or Debian, who are usually not really known for coming up too
fast with such fixes?
Even with all the extra time and resources MS had, look at the
breakage their fix has caused.
---Mike
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
