On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 08:24:32 +0100 Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 19/02/11 at 17:40 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:39:03 + Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > > Hypothesis 1: using an older kernel in testing results in fewer
> > > > vulnerabilities
> > > >
> > > > Criteria: fe
On 19/02/11 at 17:40 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:39:03 + Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > Hypothesis 1: using an older kernel in testing results in fewer
> > > vulnerabilities
> > >
> > > Criteria: fewer vulnerabilities in lenny than squeeze during squeeze
> > > testin
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 04:58:50PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 22:28:17 +0100 Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 03:55:03PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > > Hypothesis 1: using an older kernel in testing results in fewer
> > > vulnerabilities
> > > Eviden
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:39:03 + Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > Hypothesis 1: using an older kernel in testing results in fewer
> > vulnerabilities
> >
> > Criteria: fewer vulnerabilities in lenny than squeeze during squeeze
> > testing cycle
> > Evidence: lenny's kernel was vulnerable to 67% of
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 22:28:17 +0100 Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 03:55:03PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > Hypothesis 1: using an older kernel in testing results in fewer
> > vulnerabilities
> >
> > Criteria: fewer vulnerabilities in lenny than squeeze during squeeze
> > t
On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 15:55 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:30:47 + Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 14:59 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > > On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 19:32:08 + Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > Again, if the user is interested in
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 03:55:03PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Hypothesis 1: using an older kernel in testing results in fewer
> vulnerabilities
>
> Criteria: fewer vulnerabilities in lenny than squeeze during squeeze
> testing cycle
> Evidence: lenny's kernel was vulnerable to 67% of th
On sam., 2011-02-19 at 15:55 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> I can't imagine anyone else being put through such a arduous process
> to try an experiment for a couple months. Why does it have to be so
> difficult?
Because noone else wants Wheezy to be stuck at 2.6.32 when 2.6.37/38 are
available.
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:30:47 + Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 14:59 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 19:32:08 + Ben Hutchings wrote:
> [...]
> > > > Again, if the user is interested in such new developments, they will
> > > > need to be willing to learn h
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:59:27 -0500 Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 19:32:08 + Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 14:04 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > > On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:48:40 + Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 13:12 -0500, Micha
On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 14:59 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 19:32:08 + Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
> > > Again, if the user is interested in such new developments, they will
> > > need to be willing to learn how to run an unstable system.
> >
> > I thought that users interes
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 19:32:08 + Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 14:04 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:48:40 + Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 13:12 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> [...]
> > > > 2. Improve testing security by reduci
On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 14:04 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:48:40 + Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 13:12 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
[...]
> > > 2. Improve testing security by reducing the amount of vulnerabilities
> > > existent in older kernels (rou
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:48:40 + Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 13:12 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> [...]
> > Also, this solution isn't just about CUT stability. As I've been
> > describing, it is about killing about 2 birds with one stone:
> >
> > 1. Make testing always instal
On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 13:12 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
[...]
> Also, this solution isn't just about CUT stability. As I've been
> describing, it is about killing about 2 birds with one stone:
>
> 1. Make testing always installable by retaining a stable/well-tested
> kernel and associated d-i i
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:09:50 +0100 Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > This will also help to provide a bit more stability for CUT [0]. Over
> > a 1.5-year period (the non-freeze timeframe) roughly 6 new upstream
> > kernels will be released, and each new kern
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> This will also help to provide a bit more stability for CUT [0]. Over
> a 1.5-year period (the non-freeze timeframe) roughly 6 new upstream
> kernels will be released, and each new kernel comes along with a high
> probability of introducing breakage.
On 18/02/11 at 17:24 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 22:54:53 -0500 Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 21:58:08 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > > > Another issue was that a lot of vulnerabilities that were found in that
> > > > time frame were
18 matches
Mail list logo
