linux-igd-devel

[Linux-igd-devel] [RFC] Release goals and roadmap...

[Daniel J B. <dan...@gm...>]

I've been testing and committing some updates to the project lately
and wanted to discuss release plans.

So far, there are a few items I'm aware of:

 1. connection data counters do not work (bug)
 2. use of unbounded strings, unchecked calls, ip address strings and
other potential security-related things - including memory (valgrind)
bugs, which I've fixed most non-subtle ones already
 3. outstanding patches
 4. subversion migration (?)

It would be good to do a 0.95 release, as-is. At least people can get
something officially updated.

Following this, I'd like to get some other security-related items
tightened up and I have a patch half-cooked for item #1 - this should
take a couple of weeks, then after a couple of weeks of code being
tested to some degree, perhaps a grand 1.0 release?

Following this, it would be great to get Nektarios's excellent patches
in and iron out any issues; I've seen at least one potential one,
which I'll raise separately - (I like the "harmonizing" concept I
think Juho mentioned) and release version 1.2/1.5/2.0 depending on how
significant our renewed energy and redefined image is.

The route to 1.0 needn't take as long this I mention, but it's good to
not have to rush. I was looking at subversion migration in the future,
since CVS is a pain without setting up the SSH keys correctly and if
you don't have full net access.

What do you guys think?

Dan
-- 
Daniel J Blueman

[Linux-igd-devel] [linux-igd] Release goals and roadmap...

[Daniel J B. <dan...@gm...>]

Hi guys,

I sent this message [1] to the linux-igd devel list, but had not
response yet. If no-one objects, I'll cut a 0.95 release over the next
few days, then move on to the next steps below.

Feedback is welcome - please CC lin...@li...,
so everyone gets the info (eventually).

Thanks,
  Daniel

--- [1]

I've been testing and committing some updates to the project lately
and wanted to discuss release plans.

So far, there are a few items I'm aware of:

 1. connection data counters do not work (bug)
 2. use of unbounded strings, unchecked calls, ip address strings and
other potential security-related things - including memory (valgrind)
bugs, which I've fixed most non-subtle ones already
 3. outstanding patches
 4. subversion migration (?)

It would be good to do a 0.95 release, as-is. At least people can get
something officially updated.

Following this, I'd like to get some other security-related items
tightened up and I have a patch half-cooked for item #1 - this should
take a couple of weeks, then after a couple of weeks of code being
tested to some degree, perhaps a grand 1.0 release?

Following this, it would be great to get Nektarios's excellent patches
in and iron out any issues; I've seen at least one potential one,
which I'll raise separately - (I like the "harmonizing" concept I
think Juho mentioned) and release version 1.2/1.5/2.0 depending on how
significant our renewed energy and redefined image is.

The route to 1.0 needn't take as long this I mention, but it's good to
not have to rush. I was looking at subversion migration in the future,
since CVS is a pain without setting up the SSH keys correctly and if
you don't have full net access.

What do you guys think?
-- 
Daniel J Blueman

Re: [Linux-igd-devel] [linux-igd] Release goals and roadmap...

[<and...@us...>]

Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I sent this message [1] to the linux-igd devel list, but had not
> response yet. If no-one objects, I'll cut a 0.95 release over the next
> few days, then move on to the next steps below.
>
> Feedback is welcome - please CC lin...@li...,
> so everyone gets the info (eventually).
>
This is a most welcome initiative, it is so nice to see linux-igd come 
to life again. I have absolutely no objection to anything you proposed. 
Looking forward to the release.

Cheers

/anders

Re: [Linux-igd-devel] [linux-igd] Release goals and roadmap...

[Eric W. <eb...@er...>]

Sounds good to me.

Eric

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Daniel J Blueman [mailto:dan...@gm...] 
>Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 8:09 AM
>To: and...@us...; 
>ew...@us...; hfm...@us...; 
>ju...@us...; kra...@us...; 
>mhy...@us...; my...@us...; 
>ro...@us...
>Cc: lin...@li...
>Subject: [linux-igd] Release goals and roadmap...
>
>Hi guys,
>
>I sent this message [1] to the linux-igd devel list, but had 
>not response yet. If no-one objects, I'll cut a 0.95 release 
>over the next few days, then move on to the next steps below.
>
>Feedback is welcome - please CC lin...@li...,
>so everyone gets the info (eventually).
>
>Thanks,
>  Daniel
>
>--- [1]
>
>I've been testing and committing some updates to the project 
>lately and wanted to discuss release plans.
>
>So far, there are a few items I'm aware of:
>
> 1. connection data counters do not work (bug)  2. use of 
>unbounded strings, unchecked calls, ip address strings and 
>other potential security-related things - including memory 
>(valgrind) bugs, which I've fixed most non-subtle ones already 
> 3. outstanding patches  4. subversion migration (?)
>
>It would be good to do a 0.95 release, as-is. At least people 
>can get something officially updated.
>
>Following this, I'd like to get some other security-related 
>items tightened up and I have a patch half-cooked for item #1 
>- this should take a couple of weeks, then after a couple of 
>weeks of code being tested to some degree, perhaps a grand 1.0 release?
>
>Following this, it would be great to get Nektarios's excellent 
>patches in and iron out any issues; I've seen at least one 
>potential one, which I'll raise separately - (I like the 
>"harmonizing" concept I think Juho mentioned) and release 
>version 1.2/1.5/2.0 depending on how significant our renewed 
>energy and redefined image is.
>
>The route to 1.0 needn't take as long this I mention, but it's 
>good to not have to rush. I was looking at subversion 
>migration in the future, since CVS is a pain without setting 
>up the SSH keys correctly and if you don't have full net access.
>
>What do you guys think?
>--
>Daniel J Blueman

Re: [Linux-igd-devel] [linux-igd] Release goals and roadmap...

[Rosfran B. <ro...@gm...>]

   It's nice your initiative, Blueman. Among these items you noted, there
are another things we can priorize too, like the 'automake/autotools'
support on compilation and library dependencies. I can do this, if everybody
agree with it: so we can use it to generate .deb packages.

[]'s
Rosfran Borges

On 8/7/06, Daniel J Blueman <dan...@gm...> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I sent this message [1] to the linux-igd devel list, but had not
> response yet. If no-one objects, I'll cut a 0.95 release over the next
> few days, then move on to the next steps below.
>
> Feedback is welcome - please CC lin...@li...,
> so everyone gets the info (eventually).
>
> Thanks,
>   Daniel
>
> --- [1]
>
> I've been testing and committing some updates to the project lately
> and wanted to discuss release plans.
>
> So far, there are a few items I'm aware of:
>
> 1. connection data counters do not work (bug)
> 2. use of unbounded strings, unchecked calls, ip address strings and
> other potential security-related things - including memory (valgrind)
> bugs, which I've fixed most non-subtle ones already
> 3. outstanding patches
> 4. subversion migration (?)
>
> It would be good to do a 0.95 release, as-is. At least people can get
> something officially updated.
>
> Following this, I'd like to get some other security-related items
> tightened up and I have a patch half-cooked for item #1 - this should
> take a couple of weeks, then after a couple of weeks of code being
> tested to some degree, perhaps a grand 1.0 release?
>
> Following this, it would be great to get Nektarios's excellent patches
> in and iron out any issues; I've seen at least one potential one,
> which I'll raise separately - (I like the "harmonizing" concept I
> think Juho mentioned) and release version 1.2/1.5/2.0 depending on how
> significant our renewed energy and redefined image is.
>
> The route to 1.0 needn't take as long this I mention, but it's good to
> not have to rush. I was looking at subversion migration in the future,
> since CVS is a pain without setting up the SSH keys correctly and if
> you don't have full net access.
>
> What do you guys think?
> --
> Daniel J Blueman
>

Re: [Linux-igd-devel] [linux-igd] Release goals and roadmap...

[<juh...@tk...>]

Hi,

I'm back and I think automake/autotools support is very welcome. I  
had some small scripts together earlier on but they were in no way  
finished (didn't install the library in right place) and didn't get  
committed. So I would be all for some better build system but other  
opinions are of course still welcome. And I think Daniel has a good  
list of things to do so far after the 0.95 gets out.

Just my two euro cents.


Juho


On 8.8.2006, at 19:43, Rosfran Borges wrote:
>
>    It's nice your initiative, Blueman. Among these items you noted,  
> there are another things we can priorize too, like the 'automake/ 
> autotools' support on compilation and library dependencies. I can  
> do this, if everybody agree with it: so we can use it to  
> generate .deb packages.
>
> []'s
> Rosfran Borges
>
> On 8/7/06, Daniel J Blueman <dan...@gm...> wrote: Hi guys,
>
> I sent this message [1] to the linux-igd devel list, but had not
> response yet. If no-one objects, I'll cut a 0.95 release over the next
> few days, then move on to the next steps below.
>
> Feedback is welcome - please CC lin...@li...,
> so everyone gets the info (eventually).
>
> Thanks,
>   Daniel
>
> --- [1]
>
> I've been testing and committing some updates to the project lately
> and wanted to discuss release plans.
>
> So far, there are a few items I'm aware of:
>
> 1. connection data counters do not work (bug)
> 2. use of unbounded strings, unchecked calls, ip address strings and
> other potential security-related things - including memory (valgrind)
> bugs, which I've fixed most non-subtle ones already
> 3. outstanding patches
> 4. subversion migration (?)
>
> It would be good to do a 0.95 release, as-is. At least people can get
> something officially updated.
>
> Following this, I'd like to get some other security-related items
> tightened up and I have a patch half-cooked for item #1 - this should
> take a couple of weeks, then after a couple of weeks of code being
> tested to some degree, perhaps a grand 1.0 release?
>
> Following this, it would be great to get Nektarios's excellent patches
> in and iron out any issues; I've seen at least one potential one,
> which I'll raise separately - (I like the "harmonizing" concept I
> think Juho mentioned) and release version 1.2/1.5/2.0 depending on how
> significant our renewed energy and redefined image is.
>
> The route to 1.0 needn't take as long this I mention, but it's good to
> not have to rush. I was looking at subversion migration in the future,
> since CVS is a pain without setting up the SSH keys correctly and if
> you don't have full net access.
>
> What do you guys think?
> --
> Daniel J Blueman
>

Re: [Linux-igd-devel] [linux-igd] Release goals and roadmap...

[Daniel J B. <dan...@gm...>]

Hi Juho and (all CC'd),

This sounds like a good post-1.0 task, when there is time to make some
larger changes.

Thanks for the feedback - I'll get a 0.95 release out the door soon,
then work on some security/robustness improvements for the 1.0
release. As always, feedback and ideas are welcome along the way ;-) .

Dan

On 09/08/06, Juho V=E4h=E4-Herttua <juh...@tk...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm back and I think automake/autotools support is very welcome. I
> had some small scripts together earlier on but they were in no way
> finished (didn't install the library in right place) and didn't get
> committed. So I would be all for some better build system but other
> opinions are of course still welcome. And I think Daniel has a good
> list of things to do so far after the 0.95 gets out.
>
> Just my two euro cents.
>
>
> Juho
>
>
> On 8.8.2006, at 19:43, Rosfran Borges wrote:
> >
> >    It's nice your initiative, Blueman. Among these items you noted,
> > there are another things we can priorize too, like the 'automake/
> > autotools' support on compilation and library dependencies. I can
> > do this, if everybody agree with it: so we can use it to
> > generate .deb packages.
> >
> > []'s
> > Rosfran Borges
> >
> > On 8/7/06, Daniel J Blueman <dan...@gm...> wrote: Hi guys,
> >
> > I sent this message [1] to the linux-igd devel list, but had not
> > response yet. If no-one objects, I'll cut a 0.95 release over the next
> > few days, then move on to the next steps below.
> >
> > Feedback is welcome - please CC lin...@li...,
> > so everyone gets the info (eventually).
> >
> > Thanks,
> >   Daniel
> >
> > --- [1]
> >
> > I've been testing and committing some updates to the project lately
> > and wanted to discuss release plans.
> >
> > So far, there are a few items I'm aware of:
> >
> > 1. connection data counters do not work (bug)
> > 2. use of unbounded strings, unchecked calls, ip address strings and
> > other potential security-related things - including memory (valgrind)
> > bugs, which I've fixed most non-subtle ones already
> > 3. outstanding patches
> > 4. subversion migration (?)
> >
> > It would be good to do a 0.95 release, as-is. At least people can get
> > something officially updated.
> >
> > Following this, I'd like to get some other security-related items
> > tightened up and I have a patch half-cooked for item #1 - this should
> > take a couple of weeks, then after a couple of weeks of code being
> > tested to some degree, perhaps a grand 1.0 release?
> >
> > Following this, it would be great to get Nektarios's excellent patches
> > in and iron out any issues; I've seen at least one potential one,
> > which I'll raise separately - (I like the "harmonizing" concept I
> > think Juho mentioned) and release version 1.2/1.5/2.0 depending on how
> > significant our renewed energy and redefined image is.
> >
> > The route to 1.0 needn't take as long this I mention, but it's good to
> > not have to rush. I was looking at subversion migration in the future,
> > since CVS is a pain without setting up the SSH keys correctly and if
> > you don't have full net access.
> >
> > What do you guys think?
> > --
> > Daniel J Blueman
> >
>
>


--=20
Daniel J Blueman

Re: [Linux-igd-devel] [RFC] Release goals and roadmap...

[Nektarios K. P. <npa...@in...>]

Sorry for not replying earlier, I was on vacations the last 2 weeks.

Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> I've been testing and committing some updates to the project lately
> and wanted to discuss release plans.
> 
> So far, there are a few items I'm aware of:
> 
>  1. connection data counters do not work (bug)
>  2. use of unbounded strings, unchecked calls, ip address strings and
> other potential security-related things - including memory (valgrind)
> bugs, which I've fixed most non-subtle ones already
>  3. outstanding patches
>  4. subversion migration (?)
> 
> It would be good to do a 0.95 release, as-is. At least people can get
> something officially updated.
0.95 is already out now, and it's great to have something officially 
versioned out for people to use after all this time working from CVS-HEAD.

> 
> Following this, I'd like to get some other security-related items
> tightened up and I have a patch half-cooked for item #1 - this should
> take a couple of weeks, then after a couple of weeks of code being
> tested to some degree, perhaps a grand 1.0 release?
I guess you'll finish item #1 on your own. What about #2 (security 
related issues). Could you elaborate more,  can you split the work to 
pieces so others can help? I could spent some time on this if you 
provide some more details and be sure I don't do duplicate work.

> 
> Following this, it would be great to get Nektarios's excellent patches
> in and iron out any issues; I've seen at least one potential one,
> which I'll raise separately - (I like the "harmonizing" concept I
> think Juho mentioned) and release version 1.2/1.5/2.0 depending on how
> significant our renewed energy and redefined image is.
Thanks for your kind comment. Please raise the issues related to my 
patches as soon as possible, so I can fix them ;-)
Do you also think I need to split the "Layer3Forwarding and minor 
enhancements" patch into smaller patches or is it ok as is ?

I don't remember what the "harmonizing" concept is. Juho could you explain?
> 
> The route to 1.0 needn't take as long this I mention, but it's good to
> not have to rush. I was looking at subversion migration in the future,
> since CVS is a pain without setting up the SSH keys correctly and if
> you don't have full net access.
> 
> What do you guys think?

+1 for subversion migration.
> 
> Dan
Thank you for your efforts.

-- 
Nektarios K. Papadopoulos
inAccess Networks