Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 09:20:29 +0100 From: Joe Holden <lists@rewt.org.uk> To: =?UTF-8?B?RGFnLUVybGluZyBTbcO4cmdyYXY=?= <des@des.no> Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposal Message-ID: <534B9A4D.5070404@rewt.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <86bnw95um7.fsf@nine.des.no> References: <9eeba1ab-2ab0-4188-82aa-686c5573a5db@me.com> <8D81F198-36A7-47F4-B486-DA059910A6B4@spam.lifeforms.nl> <867g6y1kfe.fsf@nine.des.no> <CADgEyUstkxO1i_B9Qsw=K9qT=nrh9evhv8VekMdNKauOQFN6dg@mail.gmail.com> <86d2gqz2he.fsf@nine.des.no> <5345C98D.7030907@rewt.org.uk> <86bnw95um7.fsf@nine.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/04/2014 11:47, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Joe Holden <lists@rewt.org.uk> writes: >> IME issues like this need to be patched first, tested later [...] > > If we'd done that and screwed up, you'd be on the barricades demanding > our heads. > > DES > Given the nature of the patch, and it being experimental (but still probably not as bad as leaving it unpatched) that wouldn't be the case, to be fair.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?534B9A4D.5070404>