Re: RFC - ImageMagick, proper testing, and handling issues without a CVE ID
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:00:28PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Yes that practice is a good thing. It keeps the mailbox small.
> I do not really understand why Holger complained. I may miss something
> obvious of course.
I was reading this over a very flaky network connection, which reminded
me how its like to read mail offline. and I wasnt thinking about how big the
patch likely would be… thats all. apologies for having been so terse.
--
cheers,
Holger
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Reply to:
- References:
- RFC - ImageMagick, proper testing, and handling issues without a CVE ID
- From: Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@connexer.com>
- Re: RFC - ImageMagick, proper testing, and handling issues without a CVE ID
- From: Guido Günther <agx@sigxcpu.org>
- Re: RFC - ImageMagick, proper testing, and handling issues without a CVE ID
- From: Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@connexer.com>
- Re: RFC - ImageMagick, proper testing, and handling issues without a CVE ID
- From: Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org>
- Re: RFC - ImageMagick, proper testing, and handling issues without a CVE ID
- From: Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@connexer.com>
- Re: RFC - ImageMagick, proper testing, and handling issues without a CVE ID
- From: Ola Lundqvist <ola@inguza.com>