On 11/09/2021 16:23, Dominik DL6ER wrote:
> Hey Simon,
>
> On Fri, 2021-09-10 at 23:48 +0100, Simon Kelley wrote:
>> For IPv6, this seems like an obviously good thing to do, since
>> one
>> --rev-server can create as most eight .ip6.arpa, but for
>> IPv4, that
>> goes up to 128 since for
Applied in 2.87.
Cheers,
Simon.
On 03/09/2021 22:47, Petr Menšík wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> I have prepared a set of patches applied over 2.86rc3 release. They were
> made to silent some of reports from Coverity scans we do for our
> packages. I did include reported parts in commit messages, so
Hey Simon,
On Fri, 2021-09-10 at 23:48 +0100, Simon Kelley wrote:
> For IPv6, this seems like an obviously good thing to do, since
> one
> --rev-server can create as most eight .ip6.arpa, but for
> IPv4, that
> goes up to 128 since for instance 192.168.1.0/25 expands to
>
>
Patch applied.
Cheers,
Simon.
On 03/09/2021 13:16, Petr Menšík wrote:
> Hi Simon and Geoff,
>
> I would include just small safeguard in the code. It may dereference
> negative char index in case of empty string. No empty strings there are
> allowed now, but I think failsafe in this place
