Okay - let's go with this:
1. Our aim is to release Squid-3.0.PRE4 snapshot over the weekend of
10/11 June.
2. We will work to a fixed list of bugs: those that have "PRE4" in
the Status Whiteboard.
http://tinyurl.com/kaoqq
This list contains the nine criticals/blockers as of today, so we
Hi Doug,
At 22.27 06/05/2006, Doug Dixon wrote:
Okay - let's go with this:
1. Our aim is to release Squid-3.0.PRE4 snapshot over the weekend of
10/11 June.
2. We will work to a fixed list of bugs: those that have "PRE4" in
the Status Whiteboard.
http://tinyurl.com/kaoqq
This list contains th
On 5/6/06, Doug Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
If we have a manpower problem, but otherwise a good rate of progress,
it may be worth trying to attract others we know may be interested in
helping.
I can help testing for bugfixes & reproducing bugs. I'm adding my
self to CC list of bugs th
Hi Guido
I agree it would be nice to release a "trustworthy" Squid-3.0.PRE4.
Three things however:
1) Our aim is not to produce a PRE4 of a known high quality, but to
produce a PRE4 that is as good as it can be by the deadline.
2) I picked the bugs on the basis of their severity as described
Fantastic - thanks Gonzalo :)
D
On 8 May 2006, at 04:03, Gonzalo Arana wrote:
On 5/6/06, Doug Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
If we have a manpower problem, but otherwise a good rate of progress,
it may be worth trying to attract others we know may be interested in
helping.
I can help
Hi Doug,
At 00.32 08/05/2006, Doug Dixon wrote:
Hi Guido
I agree it would be nice to release a "trustworthy" Squid-3.0.PRE4.
Three things however:
1) Our aim is not to produce a PRE4 of a known high quality, but to
produce a PRE4 that is as good as it can be by the deadline.
2) I picked the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Doug Dixon wrote:
> Hi Guido
>
> I agree it would be nice to release a "trustworthy" Squid-3.0.PRE4.
>
> Three things however:
>
> 1) Our aim is not to produce a PRE4 of a known high quality, but to
> produce a PRE4 that is as good as it can be by
mån 2006-05-08 klockan 10:32 +1200 skrev Doug Dixon:
> 1200 (HTTP Response Splitting attack) - patched in 2.5 - is this an
> easy port?
It's a bit of work, and not very important for the PRE4 release. It's
sufficient to have it documented as a known weakness, and thereby
discouraging people fro
On 9 May 2006, at 02:29, Tres Seaver wrote:
Both ESI issues look to be symptoms of the same bug, given the
backtraces:
- In #975:
#4 0x080a0263 in ESICustomParser::parse (this=0x85787d8, \
dataToParse=0x0,lengthOfData=1396) at ESICustomParser.cc:97
- In # 1088:
#6 0x0809ffe
Hopefully this finalises our list of PRE4 bugs
On 9 May 2006, at 08:43, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
mån 2006-05-08 klockan 10:32 +1200 skrev Doug Dixon:
1200 (HTTP Response Splitting attack) - patched in 2.5 - is this an
easy port?
It's a bit of work, and not very important for the PRE4 releas
On 5/9/06, Doug Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hopefully this finalises our list of PRE4 bugs
...
As if by magic, our list is still nine bugs long, but they're
probably now the right ones to concentrate on.
Isn't bug 1125 a duplicate of 624?
Regards,
--
Gonzalo A. Arana
Not sure. Sounds like a question for Rob as he's the Assigned-To man
for both those bugs.
I must say, bug #1125 isn't very descriptive on its own (although it
has far more information lurking in its duplicates.)
On 10 May 2006, at 11:11, Gonzalo Arana wrote:
On 5/9/06, Doug Dixon <[EMAI
12 matches
Mail list logo
