On 21 June 2014 19:51, Otto Moerbeek <o...@drijf.net> wrote: > You care confusing the matter. Kurt already expained he got the fix > from OpenBSD. After that explanation, the OpenSSL repo was fixed to > contain the attribution. >
I think we are all getting confused in this thread! :-) Otto - I think you are confusing the other case of missing attribution with this one. The other case was fixed, this one has not been. I was hoping that Kurt Cancemi would explain whether he got the patch from OpenBSD or independently discovered it. I haven't seen a response - are you saying that you have Otto? I am happy to fix the repo to correctly attribute the fix, if that is the right course of action. To be honest in the absence of a response from Kurt I am unsure what the right thing to do is!? Given that its been a week since this occurred, a compromise could be to fix the repo by keeping the commit as it is with its attribution, but adding an additional comment saying that we note that OpenBSD also discovered this issue on 24th May. Is that acceptable? (NB: by fixing the repo I mean, adding a revert commit, and reapplying the change...I can't actually rewrite history) Matt ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
