| 1 |
On 03/10/2018 05:38 PM, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Zac Medico posted on Sat, 10 Mar 2018 15:16:29 -0800 as excerpted: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Changes: |
| 5 |
>> * First paragraph rewritten by Robin Johnson <robbat2> |
| 6 |
>> * Fixes spelling of 'following' reported by Michael Everitt |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> Title: Portage rsync tree verification unstable |
| 10 |
>> Author: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> |
| 11 |
>> Posted: 2018-03-13 |
| 12 |
>> Revision: 1 |
| 13 |
>> News-Item-Format: 2.0 |
| 14 |
>> Display-If-Installed: sys-apps/portage |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> Portage rsync tree verification is being temporarily turned off by |
| 17 |
>> default, starting with sys-apps/portage-2.3.24. This permits |
| 18 |
>> stabilization of sys-apps/portage-2.3.24 while still working on bugs |
| 19 |
>> relating to tree verification [1]: deadlocks [2] & key fetching [3]. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
>> [...] |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> With robbat2's first paragraph rewrite the effect isn't quite as bad |
| 24 |
> as that of the first draft, but the title still refers to "unstable", |
| 25 |
> which in addition to the intended package-stability meaning, has a |
| 26 |
> number of more severe and thus unnecessarily alarming meanings not |
| 27 |
> intended here. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> FWIW, being security minded and knowing verification related to |
| 30 |
> security, my own first thought was an app instability due to a |
| 31 |
> potentially exploitable buffer-overflow... in code dealing with |
| 32 |
> verification and thus potentially remotely triggerable during |
| 33 |
> verification itself, definitely more alarming than intended! |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Thankfully robbat2's rewrite clarifies in the body now, but |
| 36 |
> I still think the title remains overly alarming. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> Maybe "... remains unstable" or "not yet stable", as in: |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Well, "unstable" sounds alarming when used to describe a person's |
| 41 |
emotional state, but it then context of software I think it's less |
| 42 |
alarming. I've found some discussion here: |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/8351/what-s-the-etymology-of-the-word-unstable-in-the-context-of-software |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
> Title: Portage rsync tree verification not yet stable |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> Or better, refer to the FEATURE flag "rsync-verify" in the title, |
| 49 |
> so it's clear it's not a portage/emerge-executable instability, |
| 50 |
> and clarify that it's the stable keyword, something like this |
| 51 |
> (but might be too long, do those news item short title limits |
| 52 |
> still apply?): |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> Title: Portage rsync-verify feature not yet stable-keyworded |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> Perhaps omit the -keyworded if that's too long: |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
> Title: Portage rsync-verify feature not yet stable |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> Feel free to revise further... |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
I really don't want to spend a lot of time making revisions, and I think |
| 63 |
"unstable" communicates well enough in this case. |
| 64 |
-- |
| 65 |
Thanks, |
| 66 |
Zac |
Archives