On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 3:49 PM Domingo Alvarez Duarte <mingo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I understand the original point of view of this thread, but I'm glad > that we have those submissions here because it makes me aware of > people/tools/technics/patterns that can help in other projects. > I completely agree. Yet at the same time, at the cost of doubling an MLs traffic? That's why I made this request to SQLite devs for alternate reporting means, and only after 6 weeks and dozens of reports. We're well aware of people/tools/technics by now, if not patterns (Windows functions mostly) "polluting" the ML was an exaggeration, I just couldn't find a better word. The work of fuzzers is of great value, no dispute here, but not so much in the ML. None of us (again, an exaggeration) was aware of Manuel Rigger's reports for example before recently, yet they've been going on for months (about 6 months if I recall correctly). Nor do we have access to these fuzzers, AFAIK, there's no doc that I'm aware of on them. Personally I'm happy for the experts only to get these reports (DRH and Dan), and I'm thankful to the fuzzers who contribute them, because we all benefit from a better SQLite as a result, but I don't care much for them in the ML... --DD _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
