From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Nov 15 12:28:14 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA18436
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 12:28:14 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers)
Received: from david.siemens.de (david.siemens.de [139.23.36.11])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA18356
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 12:28:03 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from andre.albsmeier@mchp.siemens.de)
Received: from salomon.mchp.siemens.de (mail.siemens.de [139.23.33.13])
	by david.siemens.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA26357
	for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 21:27:54 +0100 (MET)
Received: from curry.mchp.siemens.de (daemon@curry.mchp.siemens.de [146.180.31.23])
	by salomon.mchp.siemens.de (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA03838
	for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 21:27:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by curry.mchp.siemens.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA00954
	for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 21:27:56 +0100 (MET)
From: Andre Albsmeier <andre.albsmeier@mchp.siemens.de>
Message-Id: <199711152027.VAA00200@intern>
Subject: Re: SUID-Directories patch
In-Reply-To: <199711140924.MAA00188@thorin.hway.ru> from "Alexander V. Tischenko" at "Nov 14, 97 12:25:57 pm"
To: tischenko@intech.hway.ru (Alexander V. Tischenko)
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 21:27:46 +0100 (CET)
Cc: julian@whistle.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL32 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > And is in 3.0-current, but doesn't belong in 2.2.  On the flip side,
> > just because a commercial entity donates code doesn't mean we should
> > take it into the source tree lock/stock/and barrel.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Nate
> 
> I am not shure people running network file servers will be eager to upgrade
> to _ANY_ new version unless expressely needed (i will not for shure!), so
> to have an incorporated patch for 2.2 that will solve administrative
> problems
> IS a good thing and also a must. And as for 3.0 - it is very unstable yet
> and shurely can't be used for building corporate heavy load servers.
> 
> IMHO, the patch MUST be incorporated.

I second that. I will never go away from 2.2 for my productions machines
in the near future.

If the decision is that it will NOT make it into 2.2, I would greatly
appreciate a patch for 2.2.5 :-)

Thanks,

	-Andre