linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/4] Stop maintainer abuse

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 18 Dec 2014 19:05:28 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Kevin Cernekee <cernekee@...il.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] Stop maintainer abuse

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:52:27AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 12:14:24AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

> >  And what's wrong for one maintainer will be right for another, and
> > vice versa.

> Ok, so what's wrong with "should not expect any feedback during the
> merge window"?

AFAICT the original complaint wasn't about people expecting feedback
during the merge window, it was about people sending things at all which
is a different thing.

> And besides, when one starts working with maintainers, one soon learns
> when they are the busiest and can refrain from sending patchsets then.

Or if that even makes a difference of course.

> I see your point that different maintainers can be busy at different
> times but you also have to acknowledge the desire of some maintainers
> not to get new patchsets during the merge window. So we have to have a
> way to communicate that to submitters so that no explosions happen.

I think it's important to be clear what we're talking about when we
advise people; the advice about allowing for people being busy or
otherwise unavailable applies pretty much all the time - one of the most
common process problems I see is people expecting quick turnaround
times, it'd be really good to set expecations there and it seems hard to
go wrong.

Not posting at all is a bit different, though, and is much more
maintainer specific - personally I'm in the opposite camp to Thomas and
would rather people just sent things whenever so I can get round to them
as I have time rather than getting everyone sending things at once.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)