From owner-cvs-all Thu Jan 18 19:17:35 2001 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from meow.osd.bsdi.com (meow.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.28.88]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 898A737B699; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:17:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (john@jhb-laptop.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.28.241]) by meow.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f0J3EpL72405; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:14:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20010118180520.U7240@fw.wintelcom.net> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:17:04 -0800 (PST) From: John Baldwin To: Alfred Perlstein Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net/micq Makefile Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, Kris Kennaway , "Brian F. Feldman" Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 19-Jan-01 Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * Brian F. Feldman [010118 17:58] wrote: >> Alfred Perlstein wrote: >> > * Kris Kennaway [010118 15:45] wrote: >> > > kris 2001/01/18 15:45:14 PST >> > > >> > > Modified files: >> > > net/micq Makefile >> > > Log: >> > > Remotely exploitable buffer overflow; FORBIDDEN. >> > > >> > > Submitted by: recidjvo via Bugtraq >> > >> > "Obtained from" he did us no direct favors. >> >> Submitted by applies to people, but Obtained from implies that the work to >> obtain it was done by FreeBSD's committers, therefore I'd say the correct >> thing in this case would be: >> >> Obtained from: Bugtraq (recidjvo ) >> >> This makes it clear that the report was gotten from a public source but not >> sent in. >> >> Can we make this the accepted form for situations like this, if there are >> no strong objects? I say strong because I don't want to help create a >> bikeshed problem... > > I agree, I was also wondering about situations where someone does > submit something however it's redone a bunch my the person who it > was submitted to. > > 'Pointed out by' doesn't give the submitter the credit he deserves > for at least trying to supply a diff, but 'Submitted by' gives too > much credit when the diff was actually reworked. I've seen 'Submitted > (in a different form) by' and I like that. > > Does that work? Anything better? That's a bit long, maybe 'Submitted partially by:'? Personally, I would expect committers to clean stuff up, and if we are already a committer, that should already be pumping our own egos up enough. It doesn't hurt to give a little credit to someone who did work on getting a patch in, even if it wasn't the prettiest patch, so I would just go with the simpler 'Submitted by:'. I do agree with 'Obtained by:' in this case however. -- John Baldwin -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message