Kernel.org's road to recovery
Posted Oct 6, 2011 23:24 UTC (Thu) by PaXTeam (guest, #24616)
Posted Oct 7, 2011 18:32 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (guest, #4458)
Au contraire. Show that there is no miscreant grepping for such stuff in the kernel (and other changelogs) in order to find out if they can put their foot in the door, and we might reconsider.
Posted Oct 7, 2011 21:22 UTC (Fri) by PaXTeam (guest, #24616)
Posted Oct 9, 2011 16:05 UTC (Sun) by vonbrand (guest, #4458)
Honesty is all about intentions.
Posted Oct 10, 2011 7:57 UTC (Mon) by PaXTeam (guest, #24616)
Posted Oct 11, 2011 1:10 UTC (Tue) by vonbrand (guest, #4458)
He asked not to indulge in a theater of flagging commits with useless (and probably misleading) comments. That is a very far cry from dishonesty.
The contention that such commit messages will make Linux look bad is nonsense, if somebody wants to get data on security problems there are lots of other sources, very much more accurate than self-selected comments on patches.
Posted Oct 11, 2011 7:36 UTC (Tue) by PaXTeam (guest, #24616)
no, he didn't *ask* anything. he *declared* that he does *not* want to see greppable words that'd identify a commit as fixing a security bug. no ifs and buts there. in less euphemistic words it's also called a coverup. second, if identifying security fixes was 'useless (and probably misleading)' then 1. why does he still let through such commits sometimes, 2. why does the rest world do this? something doesn't add up here if you theory holds ;).
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds