<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
On 10-Sep-21 13:11, Evan Hunt wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:20210910171130.GA27132@isc.org">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Recently a critical bug was discovered in which map files that were
generated by a previous version of BIND caused a crash in newer versions.
It took over a month for anybody to report the bug to us, which suggests
that the number of people willing to put up with such a finicky format
must be pretty small. (Or that the people who use it aren't keeping up with
regular software updates, I guess.)</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Thanks for the history/data.<br>
</p>
<p>In my experience, the bigger the operator (of any system), the
more slowly they are likely to update it.</p>
A month doesn't seem like a long time - everyone wants to be second
to update (except for CVEs, and even there I don't rush to update
for CVEs related to features I don't use).<br>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""><blockquote type="cite"><pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">it would be nice not to have to worry about map files when it came to
maintaining feature parity.)</pre></blockquote></pre>
<p>I wouldn't worry all that much about blowing away old map files
with a version upgrade; they're pretty well documented as a cache,
not a primary format. And you supply the tools to convert to a
stable format.</p>
<p>In fact, were you to come up with a data structure and loading
scheme that made raw as fast as map, you could treat "map" as a
hint that a user values speed over size & portability - and
just write raw format instead. Until the pendulum swings again.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>