linux-kernel - Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 3/3] libnvdimm, MAINTAINERS: Maintainer Entry Profile

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:   Fri, 13 Sep 2019 19:57:52 +0200
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        ksummit <ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 3/3] libnvdimm, MAINTAINERS:
 Maintainer Entry Profile

Hi Randy,

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 5:00 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
> On 9/13/19 4:48 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> >> So I'm expecting to take this kind of stuff into Documentation/.  My own
> >> personal hope is that it can maybe serve to shame some of these "local
> >> quirks" out of existence.  The evidence from this brief discussion suggests
> >> that this might indeed happen.
> >
> > I don't think it's shaming, I think it's validating.  Everyone just
> > insists that since it's written in the Book of Rules then it's our fault
> > for not reading it.  It's like those EULA things where there is more
> > text than anyone can physically read in a life time.
>
> Yes, agreed.
>
> > And the documentation doesn't help.  For example, I knew people's rules
> > about capitalizing the subject but I'd just forget.  I say that if you
> > can't be bothered to add it to checkpatch then it means you don't really
> > care that strongly.
>
> If a subsystem requires a certain spelling/capitalization in patch email
> subjects, it should be added to MAINTAINERS IMO.  E.g.,
> E:      NuBus

Oh, I understood the question differently.  I thought it was about
"sub: system: Fix foo" vs. "sub: system: fix foo".

For simple and trivial things, I tend to make changes while applying, as that's
usually less work than complaining, and verifying that it's been fixed in the
next (if any) version n days/weeks/months later.

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