linux-kernel - Re: 463 kernel developers missing!

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20080729041539.GD9378@mit.edu>
Date:	Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:15:39 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU>
To:	Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@...il.com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 463 kernel developers missing!

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 12:13:37AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> Personally, I have no objection to the mailmap file as it's on the
> whole an improvement; if it's been automatically generated and it
> falsely maps multiple people to a single person, that would be highly
> unfortunate, but maybe it fixes more problems than it creates.

Typo correction.  The first part of that sentence should read:

"Personally, I have no objection to the mailmap file IF on the
whole it's an improvement...."

> I think the part most people are seriously objecting to is that the
> supposition that Linus and some of his top lieutenants should be
> enforcing some arbitrary rule that rejects commits if they come from
> addresses outside of your .mailmap file (unless they first send a
> patch to add their e-mail address to the .mailmap file), in some kind
> of misguided attempt to enforce validation, which apparently the main
> justification for which is so that you and others can runs some
> statistical analysis, of which there seems to be some dispute whether
> or not encouraging people to compete to get into the top 20
> signed-off-by by splitting up commits into 100 different micro-patches
> should be considered a desirable side effect of said statistical
> analysis.
> 
> As I said earlier, the moment you started advocating enforcing
> validation, you may have started to confuse which is the tail and
> which is the dog.  People should be supplying patches to improve the
> kernel; not to provide accurate fodder for statistical analysis.
> 
> 						- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/