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

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

Message-ID: <1390395744.31946.45.camel@joe-AO722>
Date:	Wed, 22 Jan 2014 05:02:24 -0800
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	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, 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.

> Which is not a very honest way to conduct discussions :-(
[]
> > MAINTAINERS already says:
> 
> That's irrelevant really, reality tells us that good people are 
> looking at the entries and are using them as-is. For such things 
> technology should adapt to people, not the other way around.

If you are going to complain about "honesty in
argumentation", try it yourself.

Be an exemplar.

Describing a previous change as being made for
intuitions sake when it wasn't, isn't.

cheers, Joe

--
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/