mike at sentex.net
Thu Jul 10 14:58:28 UTC 2008
At 06:29 AM 7/10/2008, Oliver Brandmueller wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 03:17:26AM -0700, Xin LI wrote:
> > Speaking as my own: Base system needs more conservative QA process,
> > e.g. we want to minimize the change, we need to analyst the impact
> > (FWIW the security fix would negatively affect heavy traffic sites)
> > and document it (i.e. the security advisory), and we want to make the
> > change a one-time one (for instance, shall we patch libc's resolver as
> > well?), so rushing into a "presumably patched" state would not be a
> > very good solution.
>I understand the reasons and that surely needs to be taken into account.
>Does that imply that the FreeBSD project got the information later than
>f.e. M$ or Debian, who are usually not really known for coming up too
>fast with such fixes?
Even with all the extra time and resources MS had, look at the
breakage their fix has caused.
More information about the freebsd-stable