linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MSM maintainers

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]

Date:	Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:10:46 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Bryan Huntsman <bryanh@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>,
	David Brown <davidb@...eaurora.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MSM maintainers

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Bryan Huntsman <bryanh@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>
>         Please let the MSM developers take full
> responsibility for the MSM architecture.  That is, after all, what the
> community typically asks from SOC vendors.

Actually, "the community" (not that there really is any such cohesive
thing) generally asks that vendors be "involved". Not that vendors be
"exclusively in control". There's a big difference.

So what I personally find distasteful is how there's apparently some
entity that argues that _others_ should be removed from the
maintainership. Why would that be the case? This kind of exclusivity
argument is bad. Maintainers can step down, but having others remove
maintainership seems dubious at best.

So get your politics sorted out, guys.

                               Linus
--
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/