On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 12:21:11PM -0700, Crispin Cowan wrote: > richard offer wrote: > > > Can someone please help me understand what the policies and procedures for > > accepting patches into the tree are ? > > Currently, only Chris (who works the LSM project for WireX) and Greg (who > used to work for WireX, but is now on his own dime) have write access to the > BK tree. The current ad hoc procedure is to convince one of them that a > patch is appropriate. This is rather more informal than I would like :-) Bah, I think more people need access to the tree. Only 2 people is just asking for problems when Chris and I go on vacation for the same month long period :) There are a lot of people on this list who have sent patches that have been included. Some of them should have access to the tree to save time for Chris and I. You all know who you are, your names are in the changelogs, go bug Chris for accounts :) Personally, I have only rejected patches from 1 group (the audit patches), and have gladly applied all others. So where is the problem? I understand Richard that you are frustrated about the patch you sent out, but you haven't addressed my email about it. I want to apply the networking patches, but the author has told me to wait, as a number of people are reviewing them. Does anyone else have a problem with the current system? Crispin, I like the thought of your proposal, but not the implementation. Could you point me to any other kernel group that has that kind of structure for applying patches? Maybe we should look at how everyone else does this :) greg k-h _______________________________________________ linux-security-module mailing list linux-security-moduleat_private http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jul 23 2001 - 14:14:27 PDT