On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:01:11PM -0500, 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?
There are commits on github/master which are not on bpf. We already have maintenance branch for 4.7 but there was no release yet. No commit on master has tcpdump-4.7 tag. This is very confusing. > b) bpf is unreliable. I mean an outage for hour or two and regular maintaince windows are fine but if site is unreachable for days without prior notice then it is unreliable in my book. > c) there is some issue (please explain more) with bpf.tcpdump.org > experiencing auto-merging difficulties. In my opinion you are putting this mildly. I am sorry, but current situation with tcpdump/libpcap git is very unfortunate. Why auto-merging doesn't work I can't tell. I have no idea who is an admin of bpf and what cron job doing the merge actually does. > d) this CVE process has been botched (I said this, and I take > responsability for this) It could have been much less painful if all of the above was not the case. > > before I propose some solution/policy/adjustment, I want to make sure that > I've heard all the issues. I don't follow, you don't like the idea to use GitHub then why we encourage people to use it as tool for contributing to the project. Michal > > -- > ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks > [ > ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect > [ > ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails > [ > > > _______________________________________________ tcpdump-workers mailing list tcpdump-workers@lists.tcpdump.org https://lists.sandelman.ca/mailman/listinfo/tcpdump-workers
