Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:21:09 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SUID-Directories patch Message-ID: <13187.879556869@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 14 Nov 1997 19:11:02 EST." <Pine.BSF.3.96.971114185945.18833O-100000@picnic.mat.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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. > 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?13187.879556869>