[tcpdump-workers] bpf.tcpdump.org vs github

Michal Sekletar 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 mailing list