There is one bug that I think should get fixed. I don't know the number.
ntpq fails too often on flaky links. I seem to be the only one who notices
it.
I assume it's something in the retransmission logic.
--
These are my opinions. I hate spam.
__
Gary E. Miller :
> > Gary, Hal, Matt, Daniel: Would all of you check in on this, please?
>
> Done.
Good. Please confirm that you're not identifying any potential blockers
other than #341.
--
http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond
Please consider contributing to my Patreon p
Gary E. Miller via devel :
> Yo Ian!
>
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 15:04:34 -0500
> Ian Bruene via devel wrote:
>
> > Only thing I know of is bug #341, which I have repeatedly forgot or
> > deliberately ignored because other things were higher priority. *If*
> > the bug still even exists, as I have hea
Daniel Franke :
> If we're aiming for a September 28 release then I propose we should
> have a dev freeze by September 1. Bug fixes only during that month;
> anything that's mere polishing goes on a branch.
>
> I don't want to release 1.0 without having
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ntp
Sorry I missed the meeting. I understand why distro maintainers
wouldn't want pre-1.0 code. I thought that you would release 1.0 both
as the usual source repo _and_ with "example" packages. I would expect
that the maintainers might well repackage to suit their tastes.
On 08/07/2017 03:59 PM,
Yo Ian!
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 15:04:34 -0500
Ian Bruene via devel wrote:
> Only thing I know of is bug #341, which I have repeatedly forgot or
> deliberately ignored because other things were higher priority. *If*
> the bug still even exists, as I have heard nothing about it since
> back when it wa
Note to self: check the reply address in the future.
Forwarded Message
Subject:Re: Time to plan for 1.0
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 14:59:14 -0500
From: Ian Bruene
To: Eric S. Raymond
On 08/07/2017 11:58 AM, Eric S. Raymond via devel wrote:
If anyone thinks my a
Yo Eric!
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 15:51:13 -0400
"Eric S. Raymond via devel" wrote:
> John D. Bell :
> >
> > I thought that one necessity before 1.0 were at least preliminary
> > "packaged" version for the major distros - i.e., .deb and .rpm
> > files, conformant to the conventions (file locations, e
John D. Bell :
>
> I thought that one necessity before 1.0 were at least preliminary
> "packaged" version for the major distros - i.e., .deb and .rpm files,
> conformant to the conventions (file locations, etc.) of the systems that
> used them.
>
> Am I wrong? If not, do you know what the status
I thought that one necessity before 1.0 were at least preliminary
"packaged" version for the major distros - i.e., .deb and .rpm files,
conformant to the conventions (file locations, etc.) of the systems that
used them.
Am I wrong? If not, do you know what the status of these are?
On 08/07/201
Yo Daniel!
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 13:18:14 -0400
Daniel Franke via devel wrote:
> I don't want to release 1.0 without having
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ntp-data-minimization-01
> implemented. As of the last IETF meeting I'm confident that there
> aren't going to be any significant norm
If we're aiming for a September 28 release then I propose we should
have a dev freeze by September 1. Bug fixes only during that month;
anything that's mere polishing goes on a branch.
I don't want to release 1.0 without having
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ntp-data-minimization-01
implem
Yo Eric!
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 12:58:13 -0400 (EDT)
"Eric S. Raymond via devel" wrote:
> * We need to start working towards a 1.0 release no later than 28
> September.
Very doable, good plan to do so.
> If anyone thinks my assumptions are incorrect, speak up quickly,
> please.
I'm 100% with you
Summary:
* We need to start working towards a 1.0 release no later than 28 September.
* I need our senior devs to identify any release-blocker issues
and tell me what they think our pre-release priorities should be.
Details:
On Saturday, I had a phone conversation with Mark Atwood during whic
14 matches
Mail list logo
