Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 09:20:29 +0100 From: Joe Holden <lists@rewt.org.uk> To: =?UTF-8?B?RGFnLUVybGluZyBTbcO4cmdyYXY=?= <des@des.no> Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposal Message-ID: <534B9A4D.5070404@rewt.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <86bnw95um7.fsf@nine.des.no> References: <9eeba1ab-2ab0-4188-82aa-686c5573a5db@me.com> <8D81F198-36A7-47F4-B486-DA059910A6B4@spam.lifeforms.nl> <867g6y1kfe.fsf@nine.des.no> <CADgEyUstkxO1i_B9Qsw=K9qT=nrh9evhv8VekMdNKauOQFN6dg@mail.gmail.com> <86d2gqz2he.fsf@nine.des.no> <5345C98D.7030907@rewt.org.uk> <86bnw95um7.fsf@nine.des.no>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 10/04/2014 11:47, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Joe Holden <lists@rewt.org.uk> writes: >> IME issues like this need to be patched first, tested later [...] > > If we'd done that and screwed up, you'd be on the barricades demanding > our heads. > > DES > Given the nature of the patch, and it being experimental (but still probably not as bad as leaving it unpatched) that wouldn't be the case, to be fair.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?534B9A4D.5070404>