On 23 August 2010 21:34, Robert Story rst...@freesnmp.com wrote:
do you think a CFV is needed for changes to non-default test scripts? i.e.
scripts that won't be run unless explicitly requested by the user?
Probably not, no.
Changes to test scripts (and to mib2c templates) feel to lie
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:46:15 +0100, Dave Shield
d.t.shi...@liverpool.ac.uk said:
DS Alternatively, it might be sensible for such intermediate level changes
DS to require a +1 vote. So in practice it should be sufficient to flag the
DS change on the mailing list, with no dissenting voices.
Robert Story wrote:
Sounds reasonable. I'll cache the patch and see what happens with rc2.
To be honest, I think caching has more cons than pros here. rc2 is going to
happen anyway and the later you commit your patch, the later we identify
potential problems. IOW, my vote is to apply your
First, a poll:
do you think a CFV is needed for changes to non-default test scripts? i.e.
scripts that won't be run unless explicitly requested by the user?
Now the patch:
this patch:
- makes a cert name unique, since the cert util fingerprint lookup apparently
does a prefix match, resulting
Robert Story wrote:
do you think a CFV is needed for changes to non-default test scripts? i.e.
scripts that won't be run unless explicitly requested by the user?
IMHO no. In case others disagree, consider this a +1 for your patch. :-)
+Thomas
