On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 09:58:33PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> 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
Oh yes, I see. Sorry for adding to the confusion...
Kurt, any comment?
-Otto
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
