What I have been doing 2021 post-January

[Eric S. Raymond]

James Browning via devel <devel at ntpsec.org>:
> I submitted a couple of patches to gpsd and one to microjson resolving
> issues. One where an empty string validated correctly as an object was
> already posted to microjson. The other allowed pretty much any string the
> same length or shorter to pass a t_check.
> 
> Three of my merge requests made it into the tree. The first resolved a
> couple of issues with readvar in ntpq. The second addressed some nits with
> the docs and the third resolved ntpdig handling address resolving errors
> poorly in Python3.
> 
> I have also five yet unmerged requests submitted.
> 
> 1203. I rewrote the part of the peers output generation and will add a new
> mode with the refid, tally code, and peer name/address on the right side of
> the graph.
> 
> 1204. I partially address Hals mode 6 wishlist by adding new protocol
> fields for the entirety of the current processes running. Also, I added a
> new duration helper and dual column stats output.
> 
> The following are the new requests.
> 
> 1207. I changed the name of the is_vn_mode_acceptable function while
> dropping NTPv1 support and requiring at least 12 octets (not 1). The tree
> version of the function checked for specific modes which draft as published
> NTPv1 did not have.
> 
> 1208. I stripped out all handling of the netlink socket and fixed around
> the breaks I found. This would reduce NTPsec w/ NTS and IPv4/6 to 5
> sockets. They are UDP4, UPD6, TCP4, TCP6, and netlink which only spuriously
> trigger DNS retries.
> 
> I also have a branch[1] that also sweeps away the asynchronous update
> updaters and the netlink socket. It is not part of 1208.
> 
> 1213. I tackled another bit of untamed in ntp_control. I took three
> *_varlist blocks and reshaped them into a trio of wrapper calls which call
> another new function. I reworked many ctl_put* functions to use a
> higher-level function call saving a few lines each. Also, new macros were
> added and used saving a few lines per invocation.
> 
> I intend to merge 1207 and 1213 Tuesday. Also 1207 and 1213 the following
> Saturday.
> 
> Are there any obvious (or not so) reasons why I should not go ahead?
> 
> [1] https://gitlab.com/jamesb_fe80/ntpsec/-/tree/21A31-twinsock

No objection from here.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>