3 ms·
The official announcement tells your that there's a vuln, it's considered important enough to break things and that it's out right now. The other thing tells yo
by pvg 5y ago
The official announcement tells your that there's a vuln, it's considered important enough to break things and that it's out right now. The other thing tells you someone committed something a few weeks ago. The missing context also helps drive a lot of under-informed grumpy threads, rather than bettter-informed grumpy comments/threads. There'd have probably been fewer grumpy threads with the better link.
- Dylan16807 5y agoThey both say right at the top that it's a vulnerability, and the old title put the breakage front and center. So I don't know what you mean by missing context.
- pvg 5y agoThe context of one is 'someone committed a thing a few weeks ago and it does a thing, according to someone posting to HN'. The context of the other is 'one of the biggest git users on the planet tells you there's git vuln, fix out right now'.
- Dylan16807 5y agoGit itself removing an ability should tell you that it's a big deal even more than "one of the biggest git users on the planet". And again, first line says it's a vulnerability. "it does a thing, according to someone posting to HN" is a big fat strawman.
- pvg 5y agoIt's really more of a Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
- smaudet 5y agoI don't know, it really doesn't sound like a real CVE - maybe add some setting I guess for those worried? Others bring up good points, if your attacker can write to C:\ you probably have other issues. On top of that, it breaks completely valid functionality - someones 'bug' is someone elses feature.