On 9/1/2011 7:51 AM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: > > On 1 Sep 2011, at 13:33, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> >> On Sep 1, 2011, at 6:31 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote: >>> I already fixed that in trunk. >>> I think this regression justifies another release for 2.2.x. But IMHO we >>> should wait at least until >>> mid next week to see if other regressions come thru and hit them all with a >>> 2.2.21. >>> >> >> +1 >> > > Ok - so this makes it sound we really should get the advisory out. Shall I > update it with some caveats and stay tuned - but still make it FINAL ? > > Or should we make this an update - and not declare final victory ?
+1 An /update/ with patch pointers (the patches themselves being moving targets as we find these bugs) and to point out the feedback mechanism (request before and after patch request and response headers as examples and especially what patch level as documented in the patch) should do just fine as an update, and we should presume there are more bugs hiding in this code. Now that 2.2.20 was published, I see little reason to track this as a wiki page; bugzilla is probably sufficient now.
