Gary E. Miller <g...@rellim.com>: > I guess you have not read my comments, and Hal's comments, to the bug where > we both show, in different ways, why the pivot is just a bug. > > Please read that, ponder, and return here.
Right. You have two things wrong. Mills's correction is not a bug,
and Hal has (at least as of this morning) figured out that it's not a
bug. He thinks the implementation is crap, and I begin to think he's
right about that - in which case the correct thing to do is fix it.
> Can we please get out of the bike shed loop and just prove something?
We are not in a bike shed - the cycle correction is required for
RFC5905 conformance and we will be *roasted* if we fuck it up. You
continue to not understand the whole problem, or to think it can be
dismissed for various reasons such as being too far in the future.
Hal doesn't have it quite right either, but he's getting there. Once
he has understood that we have to minimize our exposure to a bad
system clock at startup, and that Mills's pivot algorithm was a
weirdly clever way to attempt that even if the implementation isn't
yet quite right, he'll be fully up to speed.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
Please consider contributing to my Patreon page at https://www.patreon.com/esr
so I can keep the invisible wheels of the Internet turning. Give generously -
the civilization you save might be your own.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
