From owner-freebsd-security  Sun Jun 23 15:09:41 1996
Return-Path: owner-security
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA27265
          for security-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jun 1996 15:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rocky.sri.MT.net (rocky.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.10])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA27256;
          Sun, 23 Jun 1996 15:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.sri.MT.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA18682; Sun, 23 Jun 1996 16:09:30 -0600
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 16:09:30 -0600
From: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net>
Message-Id: <199606232209.QAA18682@rocky.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
In-Reply-To: <199606231935.OAA00300@zen.nash.org>
References: <199606231935.OAA00300@zen.nash.org>
Sender: owner-security@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 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