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  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:   Mon, 22 Oct 2018 23:05:07 -0700
From:   Randy Dunlap <>
To:     Joe Perches <>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        James Bottomley <>
Cc:     linux-kernel <>,
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [GIT PULL] code of conduct fixes for 4.19-rc8

On 10/22/18 9:16 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-10-22 at 22:10 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 01:15:14PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> This is the series of patches which has been discussed on both ksummit-
>>> discuss and linux-kernel for the past few weeks.  As Shuah said when
>>> kicking off the process, it's designed as a starting point for the next
>>> phase of the discussion, not as the end point, so it's only really a
>>> set of minor updates to further that goal.
>>> The merger of the three patches to show the combined effect is attached
>>> below.  However, Greg recently posted the next phase of the discussion,
>>> so people will be asking what the merger of the series looks like. 
>>> Ignoring the non-CoC documents, I think it looks like this
>> Sorry for not responding sooner for this, travel and the meeting today
>> took up my time.
>> Anyway, as we discussed today in the Maintainers summit, let's leave the
>> Code of Conduct text alone for now.  It matches what "upstream" has with
>> the exception of removing that one paragraph.  If you have issues with
>> the wording in it, please work with upstream to fix the issues there as
>> hundreds of other projects will benefit with your changes if they are
>> really needed.
> Given the different development models, that's not
> a very compelling argument.
> As James Bottomley has suggested multiple times,
> I'd much rather kernel development use the debian
> code of conduct verbatim than even this modified one.

Yes, that and the Samba URL are good.

And it's disappointing how patches from James are acked or reviewed on the
mailing lists and then mostly ignored (until the maintainer summit) while
other patches are merged into the mainline git tree.

It seems to be very one-sided.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists