| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Re: Bad Maintainance!Re: Bad Maintainance!Posted Dec 2, 2003 20:03 UTC (Tue) by crimsun (subscriber, #13750)In reply to: Bad Maintainance! by AnswerGuy Parent article: The brk() vulnerability I think it's a fundamental difference in how a maintainer follows the rigor of his release schedule. The argument has been made that people who track exploits closely will patch their systems regardless of whether a version bump is made to accomodate the release of a critical fix. I feel Marcelo's doing a fine job maintaining 2.4. Yes, Alan's policy with 2.2 has always been more finely-suited to security releases reflecting version bumps. That way there is no confusion. The original closing hook really stands; we all need to be watching cset merges.
(Log in to post comments)
Re: Bad Maintainance! Posted Dec 2, 2003 21:20 UTC (Tue) by freethinker (guest, #4397) [Link] I don't agree. Yes, we can have some people, who have the skills and time to track exploits, patch their systems. But wouldn't it be better if the maintainer patched the kernel and issued a new release with an appropriate message regarding the urgency? Then many more people would be aware and would upgrade. That's what the maintainer is for: to track these things, to be aware of urgent issues, and to do the right thing with them.I won't go so far as to say that Marcelo fell down on the job here. I don't know all the circumstances. But the question should be asked.
|
|
||||||||||||