James Browning via devel <devel@ntpsec.org>: > I submitted a couple of patches to gpsd and one to microjson resolving > issues. One where an empty string validated correctly as an object was > already posted to microjson. The other allowed pretty much any string the > same length or shorter to pass a t_check. > > Three of my merge requests made it into the tree. The first resolved a > couple of issues with readvar in ntpq. The second addressed some nits with > the docs and the third resolved ntpdig handling address resolving errors > poorly in Python3. > > I have also five yet unmerged requests submitted. > > 1203. I rewrote the part of the peers output generation and will add a new > mode with the refid, tally code, and peer name/address on the right side of > the graph. > > 1204. I partially address Hals mode 6 wishlist by adding new protocol > fields for the entirety of the current processes running. Also, I added a > new duration helper and dual column stats output. > > The following are the new requests. > > 1207. I changed the name of the is_vn_mode_acceptable function while > dropping NTPv1 support and requiring at least 12 octets (not 1). The tree > version of the function checked for specific modes which draft as published > NTPv1 did not have. > > 1208. I stripped out all handling of the netlink socket and fixed around > the breaks I found. This would reduce NTPsec w/ NTS and IPv4/6 to 5 > sockets. They are UDP4, UPD6, TCP4, TCP6, and netlink which only spuriously > trigger DNS retries. > > I also have a branch[1] that also sweeps away the asynchronous update > updaters and the netlink socket. It is not part of 1208. > > 1213. I tackled another bit of untamed in ntp_control. I took three > *_varlist blocks and reshaped them into a trio of wrapper calls which call > another new function. I reworked many ctl_put* functions to use a > higher-level function call saving a few lines each. Also, new macros were > added and used saving a few lines per invocation. > > I intend to merge 1207 and 1213 Tuesday. Also 1207 and 1213 the following > Saturday. > > Are there any obvious (or not so) reasons why I should not go ahead? > > [1] https://gitlab.com/jamesb_fe80/ntpsec/-/tree/21A31-twinsock
No objection from here. -- <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a> _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel