On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On 9/12/05, Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I don't think you're going to get a very good answer here. It boils down
> > to what you already know - it's a bug which results in corruption, and
> > that's the only way to fix it. The common d
Hi Andi,
On 9/13/05, Andi Gutmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mini releases are not only for security fixes. We also do bug fixes,
> and sometimes even minor functionality (like a new function) which
> has very low risk of breaking anything. I don't think 5.0.5 is
> different from that.
As far
Hey Pierre,
Mini releases are not only for security fixes. We also do bug fixes,
and sometimes even minor functionality (like a new function) which
has very low risk of breaking anything. I don't think 5.0.5 is
different from that.
I do think we could probably be better at communicating these
On 9/12/05, Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think you're going to get a very good answer here. It boils down
> to what you already know - it's a bug which results in corruption, and
> that's the only way to fix it. The common decision was that it's more
> important to fix this
At 01:54 12/09/2005, Pierre Joye wrote:
Hello,
Without arguing again about the """fix""" for the memory corruption
discovered earlier this summer and without anyone able to reproduce
with a medium size script, _why_ in the world one applies this fix to
the 5.0 branche?
5.0.5 was supposed to be
