Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 03:07:18 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: python@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 240774] security/py-fido2: Update to 0.7.1 Message-ID: <bug-240774-21822-tcjFn7pjki@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-240774-21822@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-240774-21822@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D240774 --- Comment #10 from Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to Michael Gmelin from comment #8) And yeh, security vulnerabilities are almost always High/Many, unless the vulnerability is conditional on an option (say a port option or optional or non-standard configuration). In the security vulnerability case, there's a = case to 'leaning towards' Many/High, independent of the underlying nature, given= the 'importance' of that class of issue The question ultimately however, is less a function of what to label what, = but more about how to label things in a manner that makes it *most* valuable to= the project/developers to optimize limited resources (time/effort), ie; the principle purpose of 'prioritization'. In our issue tracking, we make little to no use of prioritization. One contributor to that I theorize is an aversion to the term given its use in commercial/PHB settings, along with 'in a project of volunteers you cant ha= ve expectations'. And unfortunately, those perceptions/mindsets have knock on effects beyond issue tracking and across the board: degree to which everything committed is reviewed, testing, code/commit message quality/standards/formatting, documentation, changelogs, etc. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-240774-21822-tcjFn7pjki>