| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:52:49 -0600 |
| 3 |
> Martin Jackson <mjolnir@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> That's making the assumption that anyone looked at it, of course. |
| 5 |
>> Please note comment #9 on |
| 6 |
>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198346. It was still ~8 days |
| 7 |
>> from then that the setuptools keyword was added. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> So, we have examples of impact due to delay in keywords/etc. Shall |
| 10 |
>> we proceed with the discussion of what to do about it? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/security/en/vulnerability-policy.xml |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> The target for that GLSA was 20 days. 8 days is well within target. |
| 15 |
> What are you moaning about? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The original topic of this conversation was about what to do about an |
| 19 |
arch that is obviously not as responsive as other arches. This is a |
| 20 |
concrete example of that fact, which you requested. This seems to be a |
| 21 |
topic frequently discussed here. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Who knows how long that request would have languished if not for the |
| 24 |
security bug? As you said, when there are so many requests and so few |
| 25 |
people to service them, they all have the same priority, unless there's |
| 26 |
something to elevate their priority. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Ciaran, I think you've made my point far more eloquently than I could |
| 29 |
have myself. Thanks for your time and attention to this matter. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Marty |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives