On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On 9/12/05, Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I don't think you're going to get a very good answer here. It boils down
> > to what you already know - it's a bug which results in corruption, and
> > that's the only way to fix it. The common d
Hi Andi,
On 9/13/05, Andi Gutmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mini releases are not only for security fixes. We also do bug fixes,
> and sometimes even minor functionality (like a new function) which
> has very low risk of breaking anything. I don't think 5.0.5 is
> different from that.
As far
Hey Pierre,
Mini releases are not only for security fixes. We also do bug fixes,
and sometimes even minor functionality (like a new function) which
has very low risk of breaking anything. I don't think 5.0.5 is
different from that.
I do think we could probably be better at communicating these
On 9/12/05, Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think you're going to get a very good answer here. It boils down
> to what you already know - it's a bug which results in corruption, and
> that's the only way to fix it. The common decision was that it's more
> important to fix this
At 01:54 12/09/2005, Pierre Joye wrote:
Hello,
Without arguing again about the """fix""" for the memory corruption
discovered earlier this summer and without anyone able to reproduce
with a medium size script, _why_ in the world one applies this fix to
the 5.0 branche?
5.0.5 was supposed to be
Hello,
Without arguing again about the """fix""" for the memory corruption
discovered earlier this summer and without anyone able to reproduce
with a medium size script, _why_ in the world one applies this fix to
the 5.0 branche?
5.0.5 was supposed to be a _security_ fix release only. I do know m
