Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News Item v2: Portage rsync tree verification unstable
On 03/11/2018 09:58 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > On 12/03/18 04:53, Duncan wrote: >> Zac Medico posted on Sun, 11 Mar 2018 19:57:31 -0700 as excerpted: >> >>> I really don't want to spend a lot of time making revisions, and I think >>> "unstable" communicates well enough in this case. >> Very well then. With robbat2's already accepted first paragraph changes >> it's acceptable as-is. >> >> Thanks. You put an awful lot of work into portage, and I'm sure I'm not >> the only one who's thankful there's a steady hand at the portage wheel, >> even if it doesn't always come thru. Your efforts certainly make the >> gentoo experience a better one! =:^) >> > +1 to that .. particularly through choppy waters lately .. keep up the > good work! You're very welcome. Thanks for your praise! -- Thanks, Zac signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News Item v2: Portage rsync tree verification unstable
On 12/03/18 04:53, Duncan wrote: > Zac Medico posted on Sun, 11 Mar 2018 19:57:31 -0700 as excerpted: > >> I really don't want to spend a lot of time making revisions, and I think >> "unstable" communicates well enough in this case. > Very well then. With robbat2's already accepted first paragraph changes > it's acceptable as-is. > > Thanks. You put an awful lot of work into portage, and I'm sure I'm not > the only one who's thankful there's a steady hand at the portage wheel, > even if it doesn't always come thru. Your efforts certainly make the > gentoo experience a better one! =:^) > +1 to that .. particularly through choppy waters lately .. keep up the good work! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: News Item v2: Portage rsync tree verification unstable
Zac Medico posted on Sun, 11 Mar 2018 19:57:31 -0700 as excerpted: > I really don't want to spend a lot of time making revisions, and I think > "unstable" communicates well enough in this case. Very well then. With robbat2's already accepted first paragraph changes it's acceptable as-is. Thanks. You put an awful lot of work into portage, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who's thankful there's a steady hand at the portage wheel, even if it doesn't always come thru. Your efforts certainly make the gentoo experience a better one! =:^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News Item v2: Portage rsync tree verification unstable
On 03/10/2018 05:38 PM, Duncan wrote: > Zac Medico posted on Sat, 10 Mar 2018 15:16:29 -0800 as excerpted: > >> Changes: >> * First paragraph rewritten by Robin Johnson >> * Fixes spelling of 'following' reported by Michael Everitt >> >> >> Title: Portage rsync tree verification unstable >> Author: Zac Medico >> Posted: 2018-03-13 >> Revision: 1 >> News-Item-Format: 2.0 >> Display-If-Installed: sys-apps/portage >> >> Portage rsync tree verification is being temporarily turned off by >> default, starting with sys-apps/portage-2.3.24. This permits >> stabilization of sys-apps/portage-2.3.24 while still working on bugs >> relating to tree verification [1]: deadlocks [2] & key fetching [3]. > >> [...] > > With robbat2's first paragraph rewrite the effect isn't quite as bad > as that of the first draft, but the title still refers to "unstable", > which in addition to the intended package-stability meaning, has a > number of more severe and thus unnecessarily alarming meanings not > intended here. > > FWIW, being security minded and knowing verification related to > security, my own first thought was an app instability due to a > potentially exploitable buffer-overflow... in code dealing with > verification and thus potentially remotely triggerable during > verification itself, definitely more alarming than intended! > > Thankfully robbat2's rewrite clarifies in the body now, but > I still think the title remains overly alarming. > > Maybe "... remains unstable" or "not yet stable", as in: Well, "unstable" sounds alarming when used to describe a person's emotional state, but it then context of software I think it's less alarming. I've found some discussion here: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/8351/what-s-the-etymology-of-the-word-unstable-in-the-context-of-software > Title: Portage rsync tree verification not yet stable > > Or better, refer to the FEATURE flag "rsync-verify" in the title, > so it's clear it's not a portage/emerge-executable instability, > and clarify that it's the stable keyword, something like this > (but might be too long, do those news item short title limits > still apply?): > > Title: Portage rsync-verify feature not yet stable-keyworded > > Perhaps omit the -keyworded if that's too long: > > Title: Portage rsync-verify feature not yet stable > > Feel free to revise further... I really don't want to spend a lot of time making revisions, and I think "unstable" communicates well enough in this case. -- Thanks, Zac signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: News Item v2: Portage rsync tree verification unstable
Zac Medico posted on Sat, 10 Mar 2018 15:16:29 -0800 as excerpted: > Changes: > * First paragraph rewritten by Robin Johnson > * Fixes spelling of 'following' reported by Michael Everitt > > > Title: Portage rsync tree verification unstable > Author: Zac Medico > Posted: 2018-03-13 > Revision: 1 > News-Item-Format: 2.0 > Display-If-Installed: sys-apps/portage > > Portage rsync tree verification is being temporarily turned off by > default, starting with sys-apps/portage-2.3.24. This permits > stabilization of sys-apps/portage-2.3.24 while still working on bugs > relating to tree verification [1]: deadlocks [2] & key fetching [3]. > [...] With robbat2's first paragraph rewrite the effect isn't quite as bad as that of the first draft, but the title still refers to "unstable", which in addition to the intended package-stability meaning, has a number of more severe and thus unnecessarily alarming meanings not intended here. FWIW, being security minded and knowing verification related to security, my own first thought was an app instability due to a potentially exploitable buffer-overflow... in code dealing with verification and thus potentially remotely triggerable during verification itself, definitely more alarming than intended! Thankfully robbat2's rewrite clarifies in the body now, but I still think the title remains overly alarming. Maybe "... remains unstable" or "not yet stable", as in: Title: Portage rsync tree verification not yet stable Or better, refer to the FEATURE flag "rsync-verify" in the title, so it's clear it's not a portage/emerge-executable instability, and clarify that it's the stable keyword, something like this (but might be too long, do those news item short title limits still apply?): Title: Portage rsync-verify feature not yet stable-keyworded Perhaps omit the -keyworded if that's too long: Title: Portage rsync-verify feature not yet stable Feel free to revise further... -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
