[tcpdump-workers] bpf.tcpdump.org vs github
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Right, but the idea was supposed to be that we DO NOT PUBLISH the fault until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
] 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