On Nov 24, 2014, at 7:01 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> okay, can we start again.
> I would appreciate some clear data and clear complaints.
>
> This is what I heard:
> a) which is "master", bpf or github?
> b) bpf is unreliable.
> c) there is some issue (please explain more) wit
okay, can we start again.
I would appreciate some clear data and clear complaints.
This is what I heard:
a) which is "master", bpf or github?
b) bpf is unreliable.
c) there is some issue (please explain more) with bpf.tcpdump.org
experiencing auto-merging difficulties.
d) t
On Nov 24, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Denis Ovsienko wrote:
> So the problem is to let GitHub do its good things to tcpdump yet to protect
> from the bad ones. To me it seems that for the next few years the best
> balance between survivability and convenience would be in continuing to use
> both GitHu
>I don't really want to put *all* my eggs on github.
I agree that GitHub is a business and businesses are not always in a good shape
and are not forever in the best case. Specifically, many projects have had a
lesson from SourceForge "developments" in the recent few years.
Besides that, where
On Nov 24, 2014, at 10:25 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Michal Sekletar wrote:
>
>> I don't agree. Rather what are you hearing is a request that code
>> should appear in master branch on GitHub with reasonable time delay.
>
> So, it happens occasionally that developers' forget to push, and
On Nov 24, 2014, at 1:04 AM, Romain Francoise wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:35:21PM -0800, Guy Harris wrote:
>> So did I. :-)
>
>> (See branches tcpdump_4.1 through tcpdump_4.6.)
>
> Ah, great, I need patches for Debian stable, which ships tcpdump 4.3.0.
> I was about to use Michal's pat
Michal Sekletar wrote:
>> Guy Harris wrote: > (I'm fine with making it the
>> Official Home if Michael chooses to do so. > I've managed to cope
>> with the workflow changes required when > libpcap/tcpdump switched to
>> Git, when Wireshark switched to Git, and > when Wireshark s
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 09:22:23AM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Guy Harris wrote:
> > (I'm fine with making it the Official Home if Michael chooses to do so.
> > I've managed to cope with the workflow changes required when
> > libpcap/tcpdump switched to Git, when Wireshark sw
Guy Harris wrote:
> (I'm fine with making it the Official Home if Michael chooses to do so.
> I've managed to cope with the workflow changes required when
> libpcap/tcpdump switched to Git, when Wireshark switched to Git, and
> when Wireshark switched to Git+Gerrit, with the aid o
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 08:16:56AM +0100, Michal Sekletar wrote:
> Also it would be nice if we agree on single place where development
> happens and stick to that.
>
> Because bpf.tcpdump.org has a bad track-record (IIRC multiple power,
> network failures in the past) I am for sticking with GitHub.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:35:21PM -0800, Guy Harris wrote:
> So did I. :-)
> (See branches tcpdump_4.1 through tcpdump_4.6.)
Ah, great, I need patches for Debian stable, which ships tcpdump 4.3.0.
I was about to use Michal's patches for 4.4.0 from the fc19 srpm, but if
you have "official" backpo
11 matches
Mail list logo
