On Saturday 12 December 2009, James Yonan wrote:
> Using nobind on the client for UDP client connections generates a socket
> with a dynamic source port number. This is key because it means that
> when the client reconnects, it does so with a new source port number,
> and this allows OpenVPN to d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/12/09 00:16, James Yonan wrote:
>>
>> However, it _could_ be a requirement that all patches be submitted
>> with documentation. If not, I can't see how you'd want to
>> include any functional changes without also having documentation
>> so some
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/12/09 12:37, Samuli Seppänen wrote:
> Now, if we want to maintain stability, we need some way to test the
> patches. Automated tests could be used in many cases but building the
> test cases takes time. In addition I don't think automated tests c
Davide Brini wrote:
On Friday 11 December 2009, James Yonan wrote:
Try adding the "nobind" directive to your client config file. I think
this will solve the problem.
That seems indeed to do it. Thank you very much!
However, never in my life could I have imagined that this was due to a setti
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/12/09 11:52, Samuli Seppänen wrote:
>> FWIW using a good (rather than merely adequate) revision control
>> system makes it much easier to keep the very latest code
>> on-line and still perform regression tests, keep separate
>> code branches for
Stefan Monnier ha scritto:
>> One the one hand people expect OpenVPN to be rock-solid in both
>> stability and security. In order to maintain this standard of quality,
>> there needs to be a rigorous process of patch vetting. On the other
>> hand, as an open source project, OpenVPN needs to be
On Friday 11 December 2009, James Yonan wrote:
> Try adding the "nobind" directive to your client config file. I think
> this will solve the problem.
That seems indeed to do it. Thank you very much!
However, never in my life could I have imagined that this was due to a setting
*on the client*.
> Via public discussion. Who wants to submit a patch when it
> just disappears without comment. Public discussion has been
> sorely lacking in the past.
>
I can't comment on how patches have been handled in the past, but not
discussing and including them is a sure way to demotivate people.
>>
> One the one hand people expect OpenVPN to be rock-solid in both
> stability and security. In order to maintain this standard of quality,
> there needs to be a rigorous process of patch vetting. On the other
> hand, as an open source project, OpenVPN needs to be transparent and
> open to con
2009.12.11 -- Version 2.1.1
* Fixed some breakage in openvpn.spec (which is required to build an
RPM distribution) where it was referencing a non-existent
subdirectory in the tarball, causing it to fail (patch from
David Sommerseth).
James
10 matches
Mail list logo
