Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 16:09:30 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net> To: nash@mcs.com Cc: nate@sri.MT.net, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.org, gpalmer@FreeBSD.org, taob@io.org, phk@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: IPFW documentation Message-ID: <199606232209.QAA18682@rocky.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <199606231935.OAA00300@zen.nash.org> References: <199606231935.OAA00300@zen.nash.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> In between writing the first message and this one I've merged -stable > with -current and am running it at this moment. The main advantages > are: > > - Better error messages, usage output, etc. > > - Slightly more intuitive (accepts host names, for example) > > - New features (yes, this can be viewed as a reason *not* to include > it in -release, but a I haven't heard any complaints about the > code in -current yet) > > - Updated man page (we can use the one in current) > > I need to tie up a few loose ends, and then I'll post patches so that > it can be reviewed by all. I hope we get reviewers, but if you don't I'd still bring it into -stable since you've given 'fair notice'. > > As long as everythign is in sync. I don't mind. I'd prefer backing out > > the new stuff completely out if we can't keep the sources and docs in > > sync, since the only thing worse than buggy code is code that's > > documented incorrectly. > > I'm not going to touch backing out of the new stuff, that would be > Poul's decision. If the current ipfw implementation stays, I think > it would be worthwhile to try and incorporate the most recent man page > and cosmetic/convenience fixes to ipfw. To make this happen though, > we need reviewers. Any volunteers? :) If the current ipfw implemenations stays it *must* have correct documentation, or else it should be backed out. I prefer the former, but I have no time to test it. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606232209.QAA18682>