Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:23:39 -0800 (PST) From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> To: Martin Blapp <mb@imp.ch> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/mountd mountd.c src/usr.sbin/rpc.lockd lockd.c src/usr.sbin/rpc.statd statd.c src/usr.sbin/rpc.yppasswdd yppasswdd_main.c src/usr.sbin/rpcbind rpcb_svc_com Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0301161015050.46845-100000@root.org> In-Reply-To: <20030116185752.L98919@levais.imp.ch>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Martin Blapp wrote: > Nate Lawson wrote: > > Please use a longer MFC period than 1 day for something which touches > > a major library component and many user programs. In particular, changes > > like this could use testing: > > Of course you are right and it would be better to have this in the tree for > 2-3 weeks before MCF. > > This is a security fix, and has been in question since two weeks. I'm mailed re > about it and unfortunatly it took so long. We (Re and I) did extensivly > test this change. I don't think I understand. Please give more information on the commits: * "Implement non-blocking tcp-connections. MFC: 1 day" * MFC of the above, 2 hours later * "Fix memleak. MFC: 2 weeks" * MFC of the above, 13 minutes later I have a hard time believing that adding non-blocking tcp connections is a security fix. At the very least, you should use a much more verbose commit message for such a large change. -Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0301161015050.46845-100000>