linux-kernel - Re: [tip:core/urgent] MAINTAINERS: Restore "L: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" entries

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:09:17 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, hpa@...or.com,
	alan@...ux.intel.com, acme@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	peterz@...radead.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:core/urgent] MAINTAINERS: Restore "L:
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" entries

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 05:02:24AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 13:27 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:

> > You have cut out my main argument from you reply and have ignored it:

> Not ignored.  Threaded email works fine.

> Your main argument is that some people don't cc lkml
> because section entries don't specify it explicitly.

> My main argument, which you elided, is that some people
> will not cc lkml because they will see some sections
> with L: entries with lkml and others without, and will
> therefore _not_ cc lkml instead.

> So I think the rule should be either every section has
> an lkml entry or no section does.

> Pick one.

> Mixing styles just causes a different type of error.

The other option is that we just don't worry if people CC lkml or not -
for things with a dedicated list it's not super critical that people CC
to lkml and in practice doing so would make it even harder to work with
than it is at the minute.  If they want to do so that's fine and it
shouldn't be a problem but at this point it's questionable if this is
something that we actively want to encourge.

In practice this is exactly what's been happening for years anyway so
it's not something I'd expect to be controversial.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)