linux-kernel - Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [ATTEND] DT, maintainership, development process

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: <CAMuHMdVRPU5mE+ehx2dFLjqod4gGHiOHUy0ufP+rEs_ZtNkuDA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2013 12:16:40 +0200
From:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	ksummit-2013-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [ATTEND] DT, maintainership, development process

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> A single SOB tag usually means that the committer himself is the author of
> the change set and I don't see why this should be regarded as a bad thing in
> principle.  Yes, it is technically possible for maintainers to "cheat", for
> example by making unreviewed changes and pushing them upstream with their
> own SOBs even without any linux-next testing, but they can do damage in some
> other ways too if they are irresponsible.
>
> We generally don't record information about what mailing lists the given patch
> was submitted and how much time the maintainer waited for comments before
> applying that patch.  I suppose we possibly could record it, but then I'm not
> sure how useful that will be in general.  It definitely would mean more work
> for maintainers and it's not like they don't have enough of that already.
> Moreover, perhaps we can simply expect maintainers not to abuse the process?
>
> I guess my point is that the fact that there are commits with one SOB tag only
> doesn't have to mean that we have a problem of any sort and it even doesn't
> have to indicate the existence of such a problem.
>
> Commits that have never been in linux-next are much more problematic in my
> opinion.

And we still have (too many of) them...

Once in a while, I do find suspicious commits that
  (a) weren't in -next,
  (b) weren't in my email archive (not unreasonable, as I'm not
subscribed to all
      Linux mailing lists ;-),
  (c) are not to be found by Google, which means they may not have been
      posted for public review at all (are there Linux mailing lists that do not
     have a web archive?).

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds
--
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/