From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Nov 14 17:36:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA20055 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:36:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from picnic.mat.net (picnic.mat.net [206.246.122.117]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA20050 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:36:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from chuckr@glue.umd.edu) Received: from localhost (chuckr@localhost) by picnic.mat.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA05754; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 19:32:35 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: picnic.mat.net: chuckr owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 19:32:34 -0500 (EST) From: Chuck Robey X-Sender: chuckr@picnic.mat.net To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" cc: Julian Elischer , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SUID-Directories patch In-Reply-To: <13187.879556869@time.cdrom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > I'm not sure that hackers is the right place for this (current would IMO > > be more correct) but I have to say that I feel Julian has a strong point, > > current _is_ the place for experimentation. It would be different if the > > I think that I already made my points about this about as well as I'm > ever going to make them, so I'll say no more on the topic of what > constitutes proper "experimentation" in -current. If you want my > rebuttal to this, read my original message again. :) > > > code that he's bringing in was non-functional, but it isn't. The argument > > that it was a small part of the whole, and non-functional even in part, > > could only be made about the older DEVFS, not the SUID stuff, so that > > But I wasn't talking about the SUID stuff. I just saw his SUID stuff go thru ... I thought that was what you guys were referring to. Sorry. > > > Is what he's asking to remain something that is very fragmentary? No. > > Is it is going in without prior testing? No, not according to Julian's > > What Julian considers "prior testing" and what we in core consider > prior testing are fundamentally at odds here. That's all I need to > say. > > > I mean, what's the downside of this? Current isn't stable, that's one of > > it's major attractions to me. Let's not become too conservative ... > > If anything, history will show that we haven't been nearly > conservative enough. > > Jordan > > ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@glue.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 213 Lakeside Drive Apt T-1 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and picnic, both FreeBSD (301) 220-2114 | version 3.0 current -- and great FUN! ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------