Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:21:09 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SUID-Directories patch Message-ID: <13187.879556869@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 14 Nov 1997 19:11:02 EST." <Pine.BSF.3.96.971114185945.18833O-100000@picnic.mat.net>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> I'm not sure that hackers is the right place for this (current would IMO > be more correct) but I have to say that I feel Julian has a strong point, > current _is_ the place for experimentation. It would be different if the I think that I already made my points about this about as well as I'm ever going to make them, so I'll say no more on the topic of what constitutes proper "experimentation" in -current. If you want my rebuttal to this, read my original message again. :) > code that he's bringing in was non-functional, but it isn't. The argument > that it was a small part of the whole, and non-functional even in part, > could only be made about the older DEVFS, not the SUID stuff, so that But I wasn't talking about the SUID stuff. > Is what he's asking to remain something that is very fragmentary? No. > Is it is going in without prior testing? No, not according to Julian's What Julian considers "prior testing" and what we in core consider prior testing are fundamentally at odds here. That's all I need to say. > I mean, what's the downside of this? Current isn't stable, that's one of > it's major attractions to me. Let's not become too conservative ... If anything, history will show that we haven't been nearly conservative enough. Jordanhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?13187.879556869>