[tcpdump-workers] bpf.tcpdump.org vs github
msekleta at redhat.com
Tue Nov 25 12:23:19 EST 2014
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:01:11PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> okay, can we start again.
> I would appreciate some clear data and clear complaints.
> This is what I heard:
> a) which is "master", bpf or github?
There are commits on github/master which are not on bpf. We already have
maintenance branch for 4.7 but there was no release yet. No commit on master has
tcpdump-4.7 tag. This is very confusing.
> b) bpf is unreliable.
I mean an outage for hour or two and regular maintaince windows are
fine but if site is unreachable for days without prior notice then it is
unreliable in my book.
> c) there is some issue (please explain more) with bpf.tcpdump.org
> experiencing auto-merging difficulties.
In my opinion you are putting this mildly. I am sorry, but current situation with
tcpdump/libpcap git is very unfortunate.
Why auto-merging doesn't work I can't tell. I have no idea who is an admin of
bpf and what cron job doing the merge actually does.
> d) this CVE process has been botched (I said this, and I take
> responsability for this)
It could have been much less painful if all of the above was not the case.
> before I propose some solution/policy/adjustment, I want to make sure that
> I've heard all the issues.
I don't follow, you don't like the idea to use GitHub then why we encourage
people to use it as tool for contributing to the project.
> ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
> ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
> ] mcr at sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
More information about the tcpdump-workers