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

Michael Richardson mcr at sandelman.ca
Tue Nov 25 13:12:18 EST 2014


Michal Sekletar <msekleta at redhat.com> 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.

Right, but the idea was supposed to be that we DO NOT PUBLISH the fault until
after you guys (the distros) actually have a package.    So, this is ENTIRELY
ON PURPOSE.   Are you saying that you'd prefer to have a zero-day exploit?

    >> 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.

I am unaware of it being unreachable for more than a Sunday afternoon to
Monday morning; and that instability with power was solved.

    >> 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.

github has lots of nice features.

Maybe we should only use github --- certainly when I first proposed github,
many people were uncertain about it --- it was too new, and we were too
experienced with sourceforge coming and going to want to sign up for another
disaster.

-- 
]               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