On 2025-03-11T21:58:07-0700, Hal Murray wrote:
> What needs to happen before we can get a release out?
0. Someone should update the "devel/hacking.adoc" release process checklist,
later.
1. It's past time to release; we have landed new features and significant bug
fixes, and too many days have
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 01:56:51AM +, Matthew Selsky via devel wrote:
> Sounds good. I'll aim to release ~15-Dec-2023.
Hi all,
Sorry for the delays. I have a release candidate tarball available:
https://ftp.ntpsec.org/pub/releases/ntpsec-1.2.3rc1.tar.gz
https://ftp.ntpsec.org/pub/releases/n
On Mon, 18 Dec 2023, Fred Wright wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2023, Matthew Selsky wrote:
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 08:17:23PM -0800, Fred Wright via devel wrote:
There are also a bunch of warnings with some compilers, which might be
worth
looking at. They're often fairly easy to fix, and sometimes
> On 12/17/2023 9:49 PM PST Hal Murray via devel wrote:
>
> Fred Wright said:
:::snip:::
> > There are also a bunch of warnings with some compilers, which might be
> > worth
> > looking at. They're often fairly easy to fix, and sometimes indicate actual
> > problems.
>
> Which compilers?
On Sun, 17 Dec 2023, Hal Murray wrote:
Fred Wright said:
The main issue I've found is that the "struct var" in ntp_control.c, is
relying on anonymous unions, which are a relatively new language feature.
That is my attempt at getting a sane procedure for adding slots to the table.
The old sch
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 08:17:23PM -0800, Fred Wright via devel wrote:
Hi Fred,
> The main issue I've found is that the "struct var" in ntp_control.c, is
> relying on anonymous unions, which are a relatively new language feature.
> They were originally a GNU extension, eventually becoming officia
Fred Wright said:
> I also stumbled across something (which may not be new) where it appears
> that if libaes_siv is installed as a system library, it's preferred over the
> bundled version. That probably doesn't change the actual behavior, but may
> lead to opportunistic builds.
That seems wort
Fred Wright said:
> The main issue I've found is that the "struct var" in ntp_control.c, is
> relying on anonymous unions, which are a relatively new language feature.
That is my attempt at getting a sane procedure for adding slots to the table.
The old scheme required coordinated edits in sev
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023, Matthew Selsky via devel wrote:
Sounds good. I'll aim to release ~15-Dec-2023.
Fortunately this hasn't happened yet. :-)
The main issue I've found is that the "struct var" in ntp_control.c, is
relying on anonymous unions, which are a relatively new language feature.
Th
I’ll create a release candidate on Monday 12/18 and then a final release
shortly thereafter.
Thanks,
-Matt
___
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
https://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> I'll aim to release ~15-Dec-2023
Sounds good. Thanks.
> I'm thinking about AES becoming the new default for ntpq, etc.
I got a few a day or so ago. I missed that one. I'll get it tonight.
--
These are my opinions. I hate spam.
___
devel ma
On Sat, Dec 02, 2023 at 08:09:00PM -0800, Hal Murray wrote:
>
> I think you should release what we have as soon as it is convenient.
>
> There are many more things I would like to include but we aren't making much
> progress so it's time to do it.
Hi Hal,
Sounds good. I'll aim to release ~15-D
Yo Hal!
On Sun, 03 Dec 2023 17:44:45 -0800
Hal Murray via devel wrote:
> Gary said:
> > DO you have an account on: https://scan.coverity.com/
> > If so, I think I can add you to the project.
>
> How does their stuff work? How often do they check NTPsec?
> Or what should I be asking?
Ever
Gary said:
> DO you have an account on: https://scan.coverity.com/
> If so, I think I can add you to the project.
Thanks. I think i worked.
How does their stuff work? How often do they check NTPsec?
Or what should I be asking?
How much mail should I expect? ...
There are 3 Coverity quirk
Yo Hal!
On Sun, 03 Dec 2023 15:07:18 -0800
Hal Murray via devel wrote:
> > Gary said:
> > > Uh, not quite. Check the Coverity stuff.
> >
> > How do I do that?
>
> DO you have an account on: https://scan.coverity.com/
On further checking,halmurray...@sonic.net is an admin
on the
Yo Hal!
On Sun, 03 Dec 2023 15:07:18 -0800
Hal Murray via devel wrote:
> Gary said:
> > Uh, not quite. Check the Coverity stuff.
>
> How do I do that?
DO you have an account on: https://scan.coverity.com/
If so, I think I can add you to the project.
RGDS
GARY
-
Gary said:
> Uh, not quite. Check the Coverity stuff.
How do I do that?
I'd expect something to send me email but I don't remember anything about
Coverity.
--
These are my opinions. I hate spam.
___
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
https://l
Yo James!
On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 21:12:04 -0800 (PST)
James Browning via devel wrote:
> 4. The buildbots are not reporting any unplanned regressions; there
> are always issues to be addressed.
Uh, not quite. Check the Coverity stuff.
RGDS
GARY
-
> On 12/02/2023 8:09 PM PST Hal Murray via devel wrote:
>
>
> I think you should release what we have as soon as it is convenient.
>
> There are many more things I would like to include but we aren't making much
> progress so it's time to do it.
Referring to the first four items on the relea
> On 08/22/2023 3:29 AM PDT Hal Murray wrote:
>
>
> James Browning said:
> > If the project is sleeping, then you may as
> >well cut the new release now.
>
> I think we should do a normal release. That includes scanning the issues and
> merge requests. And lots of testing.
>
> I'm work
James Browning said:
> If the project is sleeping, then you may as
>well cut the new release now.
I think we should do a normal release. That includes scanning the issues and
merge requests. And lots of testing.
I'm working on making a couple of new stats files for NTP packets using NTS
Hi all,
We had some recent commits to fix issues found by Google's OSS-Fuzz scanner so
we've decided to do a release candidate today and then a full release next week
after we've had some more time to kick the tires.
The release candidate is available at
https://ftp.ntpsec.org/pub/releases/ntp
> On 12/15/2022 1:21 PM PST Matthew Selsky via devel wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I plan to cut a release on Thu 12/22/2022. I'm sorry about the delays in
> getting this release out the door.
>
> If there's anything that absolutely must be in this release and can't wait
> until the next releas
On Apr 20, 2022 07:30, Matt Selsky via devel wrote:Hi Hal,
I'd like to get https://gitlab.com/NTPsec/ntpsec/-/merge_requests/1264 merged and then do the release.
Is there anything else that we want in the release?Yes, but in the interest of helping get it out on this calendar the rest of my
[Mail to devel has about a 10 hour delay.]
Sorry for not providing more context on my first try.
> "nts nowildcards" changes the default from wildcards allowed to not allowed.
> server blah, blah "nowildcards" turns off wildcards for this slot
> server blah, blah "wildcardsOK" allows wildcards fo
> Sorry, I'm not following what you mean here. Do you have a patch or merge
> request that I can look at?
I should be able to explain it.
In the config file:
"nts nowildcards" changes the default from wildcards allowed to not allowed.
server blah, blah "nowildcards" turns off wildcards for t
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 12:13:25AM -0700, Hal Murray via devel wrote:
> nts nowildcards at the top level to set the default
> nowildcards at the server level
> wildcardsOK at the server level to override the default
Hi Hal,
Sorry, I'm not following what you mean here. Do you have a patch or merg
Richard Laager said:
> 8 cases? I thought it was one setting, which would be 2 cases.
> Can you expand upon what you're actually proposing? Ideally as a merge
> request, but at least explain the knobs here.
nts nowildcards at the top level to set the default
nowildcards at the server level
wild
On 4/21/22 03:17, Hal Murray via devel wrote:
There are 8 cases. I think I tested them all. If it will make you happy,
I'll test again, being careful to check all 8 cases.
8 cases? I thought it was one setting, which would be 2 cases.
Can you expand upon what you're actually proposing? Ideal
[Eric: There are a couple of preceding messages to devel in the mail
someplace.]
> I'd like to get https://gitlab.com/NTPsec/ntpsec/-/merge_requests/1264 merged
> and then do the release.
> Is there anything else that we want in the release?
I'm sorry that we have gotten off on the wrong foot (
Hi Hal,
I'd like to get https://gitlab.com/NTPsec/ntpsec/-/merge_requests/1264 merged
and then do the release.
Is there anything else that we want in the release?
Thanks,
-Matt
___
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
https://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/
The normative content of the RFC is not going to change. There's no
reason to hold back any release while waiting for publication.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:43 AM Hal Murray via devel wrote:
>
>
> Maybe we should get 1.2 out now/soon so it will be ready when the RFC comes
> out rather than short
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 4:54 PM Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 08:51:06PM +, Mark Atwood wrote:
> > There should be a tag in gitlab. If there is not, it is my mistake, and
> I
> > will fix it this evening. ..m
>
> There are also no releases on ftp://ftp.ntpsec.org/pub/release
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 08:51:06PM +, Mark Atwood wrote:
> There should be a tag in gitlab. If there is not, it is my mistake, and I
> will fix it this evening. ..m
There are also no releases on ftp://ftp.ntpsec.org/pub/releases/,
0.9.1 is the latest.
Kurt
___
There should be a tag in gitlab. If there is not, it is my mistake, and I
will fix it this evening. ..m
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 12:37 PM Gregory Boyce
wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I was wondering what the status was of the 0.9.3 release. I see two
> checkins from Mark on the 18th which seem to indica
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Amar Takhar wrote:
> This also means we can remove the 'waf' binary from the Git repository and
> package it in with the tarball releases in the future
>
Speaking for ease of use for me, I would prefer not to think about which
waf version to use when building fro
Amar Takhar :
> This also means we can remove the 'waf' binary from the Git repository and
> package it in with the tarball releases in the future.
I'd be opposed to this. It might compromise build replicability in the future.
--
http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond
_
37 matches
Mail list logo
