21/11/13 09:10, intrigeri wrote: > Hi, > > anonym wrote (21 Nov 2013 05:58:37 GMT) : >> 04/11/13 14:49, intrigeri wrote: >>> To end with, I notice the blueprint was not updated (modulo typos etc. >>> I fixed) since almost a month. At some point, you'll want to make it >>> include all the good thinking that was put into the >>> recent discussions. > >> Done. > > Great work, congrats! This blueprint will become a wonderful design > document, that we can hand out to anyone wanting to audit this > feature. I've pushed a few typo fixes and minor rephrasing (316f2fc).
Thanks! Sorry for forgetting to M-x ispell. > Remarks: > > * The "plugging" and "plugged" (of network interfaces) words are used > in multiple places in a way that's not obvious without knowing the > implementation details (or reading the relevant section below). Done (f8bb474). > * When pointing to scripts and configuration files, please use the > tails_gitweb shortcut so that Luke^Wanyone can simply click on > a link to read the source. Done (1821cf7). > * I had to re-read this sentence a few times to understand what it > meant: "Therefore we make an exception to have the MAC spoofing > option enabled by default in Tails Greeter if it detects that Tails > is running inside a virtual machine" => please rephrase. What do you think about commit c177710? > * Regarding "It would obviously require to drop `set -e`, because > errors are indeed what could cause this to happen." --> err, well, > I kinda disagree that letting errors propagate further, just so we > can enjoy detecting it later, is "obvious". "set -e" detects a given > class of error conditions, great. The proposed failsafe check would > detect another (probably overlapping) class of error conditions. > I think that both should coexist. My point is that `set -e` doesn't simply "detect" errors, like you put it; it *terminates* the script upon certain error conditions, which most likely prevents whatever failsafe we have from detecting its class of errors (at least the non-overlapping part) and warn the user etc. Or am I misunderstanding how you want this failsafe to be implemented? > * Regarding "Loss of hotplugged devices" --> I'll do the test. Excellent! I'm glad it looks like this is not a problem. Cheers! _______________________________________________ tails-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
