I am not sure where is the misinterpretation on this thread. Could it be the one incorrect word translation when asking for the membership combined with the first post on this thread?
The sf hides emails. So sending to the sf mail unless I can see the non-sf email as recognized by active developer or in the log or sources. Btw. Just realized the report usage is probably limited by license. So the plan to attach that to review is over unless I have some clarification. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Zdenek Styblik" <zdenek.styb...@gmail.com> To: "Ales Ledvinka" <aledv...@redhat.com> Cc: "ipmitool-devel" <ipmitool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 12:31:19 PM Subject: Re: [Ipmitool-devel] code analysis On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Ales Ledvinka <aledv...@redhat.com> wrote: [...] >> > Then it's about effort to generate the report, >> > effort to check the reported item >> > whether it's security issue or not and effort to fix it. These are >> > not the same thing. >> >> Right. And if you want to do it all behind the closed, but unlocked, >> doors, that's fine by me. However I'm not going to opt in, because >> that's not how I do things. >> > Doors remain doors, arrangements change depending on situation. > I am asking for sort of auditable handover, not door opening. > *shrug* It's my personal preference and choice and I stand firmly behind it. No worries though. Z. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. SALE $99.99 this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122412 _______________________________________________ Ipmitool-devel mailing list Ipmitool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ipmitool-devel
