Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:52:49 -0600
Martin Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's making the assumption that anyone looked at it, of course.
Please note comment #9 on
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198346. It was still ~8 days
from then that the setuptools keyword was added.
So, we have examples of impact due to delay in keywords/etc. Shall
we proceed with the discussion of what to do about it?
http://www.gentoo.org/security/en/vulnerability-policy.xml
The target for that GLSA was 20 days. 8 days is well within target.
What are you moaning about?
The original topic of this conversation was about what to do about an
arch that is obviously not as responsive as other arches. This is a
concrete example of that fact, which you requested. This seems to be a
topic frequently discussed here.
Who knows how long that request would have languished if not for the
security bug? As you said, when there are so many requests and so few
people to service them, they all have the same priority, unless there's
something to elevate their priority.
Ciaran, I think you've made my point far more eloquently than I could
have myself. Thanks for your time and attention to this matter.
Marty
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
