> From: Jon Masters [mailto:[email protected]] > > On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 11:25 -0400, [email protected] wrote: > > >> From: Jon Masters [mailto:[email protected]] > > > > > Nothing against John or Peter, but there's such a thing as change > > > management. If it was easy to put it back up quickly and safely, but it > > > needs to be overhauled to enhance functionality, then the thing to do is > > > put it back up quickly, and plan the overhaul in such a way that it > > > doesn't entail a month of downtime. > > Which would be a better headline? > > 1). "kernel.org rooted again, lax security blah blah blah. Film at 11!" > 2). "kernel.org still down, everyone sucks". > > I have to say I favor the latter.
Agreed. But I feel like this converstaion is going around in circles. Originally I said by not getting it back up, they're basically acknowledging that it would be unsafe to do so, and I commented, if they don't have adequate security, what are the rest of us to do? And then you said you conclude a different conclusion - let's give them the benefit of the doubt - that they're working very hard and it's very complex. Which, I think, is actually not a contradiction... I commented tangentially - Aren't they doing the same thing at github? According to Peter's email, it seems the flaw was using shell access to the git repositories. Isn't that what github does? _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
