Sorry for duplicated email,
On Thu, 2021-04-01 at 16:58 +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> I don’t think we should have a security-updates
> branch, because the role of that branch is effectively taken by
> staging.
I don't think that's the case because staging is documented for things
that do not
On Thu, 2021-04-01 at 16:58 +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> Hi Léo,
>
[...]
> That’s fine. We have no deadlines, so stepping back from what feels
> like a heated discussion for a while and revisiting the points later
> comes at very little cost.
>
> Obviously, you don’t *have* to accept other
Hi Léo,
> Hello Ludo,
>
> On Wed, 2021-03-31 at 23:29 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> It’s unacceptable to call someone “obsessed” just because you
>> disagree
>> and calling Simon’s comments “harassment” is equally inappropriate.
>
> I really do feel harassed by their comments, it's not just
Hello Ludo,
On Wed, 2021-03-31 at 23:29 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> It’s unacceptable to call someone “obsessed” just because you
> disagree
> and calling Simon’s comments “harassment” is equally inappropriate.
I really do feel harassed by their comments, it's not just because I
disagree,
Léo,
Léo Le Bouter skribis:
> I feel harassed by your comments because you obsessed on this zstd
> issue and try to make it the cause of some other problems you saw
> without any evidence.
It’s unacceptable to call someone “obsessed” just because you disagree
and calling Simon’s comments
On Tue, 2021-03-30 at 13:48 +0200, zimoun wrote:
> Ahah, I am happy to know it. I hope it is because a
> “miscommunication»
> and not because you do not carefully read or because maybe you only
> see
> through the tiny lens of known security vulnerabilities. From my
> opinion, your point of view
On Sat, 27 Mar 2021 at 15:14, Léo Le Bouter wrote:
> but you
> cannot put forward the arguments you've made, they do not work.
Ahah, I am happy to know it. I hope it is because a “miscommunication»
and not because you do not
On Sat, 2021-03-27 at 14:56 +0100, zimoun wrote:
> Oh, I am a big boy and I can think whatever I want! :-)
>
> Kidding aside.
...
>
> First, what does it mean «risk»? How do you evaluate it? Is it a
> relative evaluation or an absolute one?
Most if not all users do not want their machines
On Sat, 27 Mar 2021 at 13:42, Léo Le Bouter wrote:
> On Sat, 2021-03-27 at 13:29 +0100, zimoun wrote:
>> And as I said elsewhere, “to me, security is important. But it's
>> no less important than everything *else* that is also important!“, so
>> personally I am not convinced that security updates
Thanks for your feedback.
On Sat, 2021-03-27 at 13:29 +0100, zimoun wrote:
> And as I said elsewhere, “to me, security is important. But it's
> no less important than everything *else* that is also important!“, so
> personally I am not convinced that security updates deserve a special
> treatment
Hi Léo,
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 at 21:10, Léo Le Bouter wrote:
> For these reasons, I would like to propose a new branch called
> security-updates that would be based on master where we queue security
> fixes that introduce any arbitrary number of rebuilds without using
> grafts.
>
> We would merge
Léo Le Bouter writes:
> On Fri, 2021-03-26 at 22:13 +, Christopher Baines wrote:
>> Can you clarify what specific problem or problems you're proposing
>> this
>> security-updates branch to address?
>
> Substitute availability of security updates when they are released,
> without causing big
On Fri, 2021-03-26 at 22:13 +, Christopher Baines wrote:
> Can you clarify what specific problem or problems you're proposing
> this
> security-updates branch to address?
Substitute availability of security updates when they are released,
without causing big rebuilds on master for users
Léo Le Bouter writes:
> There is two ways to ship security fixes to packages:
>
> 1. Update to a patched version if upstream provides one
> 2. Apply or backport individual patches to fix the issues in the
> shipped version
>
> Grafts are most reliable for 2. but there's cases where using 2. is
14 matches
Mail list logo
