Subject: Re: Wu-ftpd Support

From: [email-masked] (Stan Barber)
Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 18:51:30 CDT

Beta-17 will be released in less than 48 hours. It fixes the three bugs
that Andy says are the worst (plus a little more) and should prove to
be as stable (if not more so) than beta 15.

-- 
Stan   | Academ Consulting Services        |internet: [email-masked]
Olan   | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: mcsun!academ!sob
Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.

---

From: Nikos Mouat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 19:48:17 -0500 (CDT)

Hi,
   I don't really care who supports the main-line version, but I'd really
prefer it if bugs like the 'sendmail' proctitle and single argument bugs
get patched and an updated version get released right away with these
fixes.. I mean it's been 5 months since these bugs have been reported, and
all first time users in that time have had to encouter the bugs, report
them to the list, and then be told the work arounds or where to find
patches.. I'm not advocating a linux style release of the day, I'd just
like to see relatively significant bugs trigger a new release.. 
(i wouldn't consider the proctitle significant, but the single argument
bug is pretty serious..)

nm

---

From: Nathan Neulinger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 20:27:27 -0500

I'd second that. My main desire is to pick up the pace, particularly wrt 
to getting new capabilities added and moving to autoconf. In particular, 
patches for a couple of authentication types (afs/krb5). 

It's one thing to put off adding new features till the next version if 
it's going to be 2 months away, but the current beta cycle has been going 
on for ages.

-- Nathan

> > be as stable (if not more so) than beta 15.

------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Neulinger                       EMail:  [email-masked]
University of Missouri - Rolla         Phone: (573) 341-4841
Computing Services                       Fax: (573) 341-4216

---

From: Nathan Neulinger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 20:57:53 -0500

At the very least, put the source in CVS, fork at 2.4.2b16, and only do
bug fixes on the 2.4.x releases. 

That way, people who want to can work on continued development, and you 
can still maintain slow gradual progress on the main release.

-- Nathan

---

From: [email-masked] (Stan Barber)
Date: 10 May 1998 04:28:07 GMT

>(i wouldn't consider the proctitle significant, but the single argument

I guess my sense of time is bad. Beta-16 was release on December 21. Today is 
May 9. That's less than five months by my calculations. Please help me under
stand how it can be five months since the bugs have been reported when it
has been less than five months since the release of beta 16.

By the way, security bugs have always triggered a new bug release. Those
are critical bugs. Bugs like the ones you list are not security bugs and are 
therefore not critical. 

In any case, I had anticipated that people with the source would be able to 
take the information on the bug page and patch their own sources until I was
able to find time to get a beta through a release cycle. Obviously, I
that was a terrible assumption on may part. I will not do that again.
That being said, I am still sticking to my development plan as outlined
previously.  So, if you need new features in the software (as opposed to
bug fixes), using an alternative source may be your best solution.

---

From: Nikos Mouat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 23:43:03 -0500 (CDT)

On 10 May 1998, Stan Barber wrote:

> >I mean it's been 5 months since these bugs have been reported, and
> >patches.. 

fine, 'over four months' - either way, it's still a very long time.

---

From: Gregory A Lundberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 01:43:19 -0400 (EDT)

> has been less than five months since the release of beta 16.

Sheesh, Stan, get a life!  You're quibbling over less than two weeks out
of, what, a 16 week period?  

> are critical bugs. Bugs like the ones you list are not security bugs and are 

No, they just confuse users making them wonder what kind of programmer
would make such a STUPID mistake.  Didn't you even RUN the code before you
rolled the release?  Oh of course you did.  Didn't blow up so you shipped.
Good QA plan there, real good.

So, he didn't mention the fact that hidden amonst all your other mistakes
and typos in Beta 16 was the accidental removal of all security for the
upload directive.  But I can see your point, Stan.  File system integrity
has nothing to do with security after all, so any problems in it can wait
months until you get arround to looking into it.  No need to panic, Warez
traders are so afraid of the security features of wu-ftpd they'll _never_
notice they were accidentially removed, will they?

----

Gregory A Lundberg		Senior Partner, VRnet Company
1441 Elmdale Drive              [email-masked]
Kettering, OH 45409-1615 USA    1-800-809-2195

---

From: Marc Slemko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 00:59:19 -0600 (MDT)

> Good QA plan there, real good.

Without commenting on Stan's releases either way, the "2.6.0" release is a
prime example of shipping code that doesn't even compile on most
platforms.  Heck, nearly the only platform it will compile on is Linux.
It seems silly to take a bit of code that runs on a wide number of
platforms and introduce needless platform-specific things.