On Wed, May 02, 2001, Robert Watson wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2001, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
>
> > > Say, FreeBSD is usually pretty safe, even in CURRENT.
> > > Has something near this magnitude of Really Bad Stuffage snuck into the
> > > codebase before?
> >
> > No, it's not common, and it generally
On Fri, 4 May 2001, John Polstra wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I think we can all take lessons from phk here -- he achieves a level of
> > destructiveness that makes even the pro's marvel in wonder.
>
> Your criticism is grossly unf
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I think we can all take lessons from phk here -- he achieves a level of
>> destructiveness that makes even the pro's marvel in wonder.
>
> Your criticism is grossly unfai
John Polstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your criticism is grossly unfair. Throughout the very long time he's
> been active in this project, PHK's contribution/breakage ratio has
> been unsurpassed.
And btw., the recent stdio breakage wasn't all that bad either, and it
completely happened in u
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think we can all take lessons from phk here -- he achieves a level of
> destructiveness that makes even the pro's marvel in wonder.
Your criticism is grossly unfair. Throughout the very long time he's
been active in
On Tue, 1 May 2001, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> > Say, FreeBSD is usually pretty safe, even in CURRENT.
> > Has something near this magnitude of Really Bad Stuffage snuck into the
> > codebase before?
>
> No, it's not common, and it generally takes a Dane swinging something
> sharp to inflict quite
On Tue, 1 May 2001, Peter Wemm wrote:
> Any -current kernel built over the weekend is a likely victim of this bug.
> In a nutshell, it will eat your root filesystem at the very least, leaving
> you with maybe one or two files in /lost+found. spec_vnops.c rev 1.156
> is should be avoided at all c
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 06:23:59PM -0500, GH wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 12:15:34PM -0700, some SMTP stream spewed forth:
> > Any -current kernel built over the weekend is a likely victim of this bug.
> > In a nutshell, it will eat your root filesystem at the very least, leaving
> > you with
On 01-May-01 Jordan Hubbard wrote:
>> Say, FreeBSD is usually pretty safe, even in CURRENT.
>> Has something near this magnitude of Really Bad Stuffage snuck into the
>> codebase before?
>
> No, it's not common, and it generally takes a Dane swinging something
> sharp to inflict quite this much
]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: HEADS UP! bad bug in -current.
> > Say, FreeBSD is usually pretty safe, even in CURRENT.
> > Has something near this magnitude of Really Bad Stuffage snuck into the
> > codebase before?
>
> No
> Say, FreeBSD is usually pretty safe, even in CURRENT.
> Has something near this magnitude of Really Bad Stuffage snuck into the
> codebase before?
No, it's not common, and it generally takes a Dane swinging something
sharp to inflict quite this much damage on our user base. ;-)
- Jordan
To Un
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 12:15:34PM -0700, some SMTP stream spewed forth:
> Any -current kernel built over the weekend is a likely victim of this bug.
> In a nutshell, it will eat your root filesystem at the very least, leaving
> you with maybe one or two files in /lost+found. spec_vnops.c rev 1.
Any -current kernel built over the weekend is a likely victim of this bug.
In a nutshell, it will eat your root filesystem at the very least, leaving
you with maybe one or two files in /lost+found. spec_vnops.c rev 1.156
is should be avoided at all costs.
BEWARE: there are some snapshots on curr
13 matches
Mail list logo
