4 ms·

Please read the thread: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.openoffice.devel/23907 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.openoffice.devel/2...

• davidgerard 10y ago
  That supplies the background to the LWN piece, and doesn't in any way contradict its assertions that this was a serious problem that should not have been suppressed. That public attention is why it was mentioned at all in the October report.
  • jimjag 10y ago
    Your point was that discussion was suppressed. The links show clearly that it was not, and when the CVE was published (and therefore public), there was open discussion and a suggested work-around. You may not agree w/ the method used to "fix" the CVE or the speed in which 4.2.1 was released (for myself, I don't either), but your claims of suppression and stuff being "deliberately" hidden is obvious FUD.
    • davidgerard 10y ago
      That's literally the thread demonstrating the accuracy of my claim above that "it had been deliberately kept out of project reports to the board." That's literally the thread where they're doing that. You have literally cited something completely supporting my claim and saying "see, this cite proves you wrong!!"
      • rectang 10y ago
        That conversation took place on a publicly archived list with hundreds of subscribers. Any one of them could have escalated the issue to the Board.
        • davidgerard 10y ago
          My claim (as the cited conversation is the smoking gun for) is that the project excluded it from their report to the board, not that it was never reported to the board. In any case, the board were fully aware for a long time of what a disaster the AOO project was; are you claiming they didn't know about the security ineptitude or something? What, precisely, is your claim here?