Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: fuzz failures not generating bugs
From: Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss.ws () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 12:06:04 -0500
Gerald Combs wrote:
On 12/3/12 7:45 AM, Jeff Morriss wrote:New bugs are showing up in the CONFIRMED state. Shouldn't they be UNCONFIRMED?They should, but I don't think any humans have created bugs since the last configuration change (the fuzz failure reporting script explicitly sets the status to CONFIRMED).
I was thinking of bug 8044 came in yesterday at 21:37 EST which I thought was after the last config change (your last email about a config change was yesterday at 20:35 EST).
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- Re: fuzz failures not generating bugs Gerald Combs (Dec 01)
- Re: fuzz failures not generating bugs Bill Meier (Dec 02)
- Re: fuzz failures not generating bugs Gerald Combs (Dec 02)
- Re: fuzz failures not generating bugs Jeff Morriss (Dec 03)
- Re: fuzz failures not generating bugs Gerald Combs (Dec 03)
- Re: fuzz failures not generating bugs Jeff Morriss (Dec 03)
- Re: fuzz failures not generating bugs Gerald Combs (Dec 03)
- Re: fuzz failures not generating bugs Gerald Combs (Dec 03)
- Re: fuzz failures not generating bugs Bill Meier (Dec 02)