| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1012060937210.14997@tundra.namei.org> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 09:40:46 +1100 (EST) From: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> To: Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org> cc: ext-jarkko.2.sakkinen@...ia.com, casey@...aufler-ca.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: VS: [PATCH] Smack: label for task objects (retry 2) On Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Eric Paris wrote: > 2) If #1 is true and you want to get Sign-off's in your parent tree > you can set up the child trees as a remote. Then you can use: > > git format-patch -k --stdout HEAD..remotes/[child]/[branch] | git am > -3 -k --whitespace=fix -s I don't think this is the right approach. If you're pulling from a repo, then your signoff does not go on each patch because you trust the repo. Otherwise, you should actually be reviewing each patch, which the above is not doing. > Our tree is so simple I don't really understand why we need all this, > but if we need it, lets figure out what works best for everyone! Each LSM maintainer should probably be doing per-patch review of the patches going into their tree, and adding their signoff, while I will try and always just do pulls from those trees. -- James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists