linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] docs: clarify rules wrt tagging other people

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]

Message-ID: <87jz8tlvqa.fsf@trenco.lwn.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 16:39:25 -0600
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
Cc: workflows@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Laurent Pinchart
 <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>, Simona Vetter
 <simona.vetter@...ll.ch>, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
 <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman
 <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] docs: clarify rules wrt tagging other people

Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info> writes:

> On 18.02.25 21:42, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>> Sorry, fell behind on things again...
>
> No worries at all. And fun fact: I put this aside myself for some time
> as I was unsure about the way forward...
>
>> Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info> writes:
>> [...]
>> Adding more cross references certainly won't help, I guess we'll leave
>> it as-is for now.
>
> +1
>
>>>> - I wonder if it would make sense to say that, if an implicit-permission
>>>>   tag has been added, the person named in it should get at least one
>>>>   copy of the change before it is merged?
>>>
>>> Hah, that is where I'd start to say "that seems like a bit much". And it
>>> does not help, as the cat is out of the bag once that copy is out, as
>>> the name and the email address someone might prefer to keep private
>>> would have made it to mailing list archives then already.
>> 
>> The cat is out of the bag but not in the repository; the thought was
>> that it's polite to give the person involved a heads-up that their name
>> is being taken in vain.  Certainly I've seen enough "what, no, I don't
>> want that tag there" reactions over the years to think it would
>> occasionally head off a use that the owner of the name doesn't want.
>
> Hmmm, have a point there. How about a "s/contributed/routinely
> contributes/" in this sentence:
>
> """
> For those three implicit permission is sufficient if the person
> contributed to the Linux kernel using that name and email address
> according to the lore archives or the commit history
> """

Sorry for being slow ... but also, I guess, for not communicating my
point very well.  My concern wasn't about somebody not wanting to appear
in the repository at all; it was more with somebody not wanting their
tag in a specific patch where they had not offered it.

It seems I'm the only one who is worried about this, though.  It seems
like we should go ahead and get this change in before the merge window
hits.

Thanks,

jon