Re: Patch Acceptance Procedure

From: richard offer (offerat_private)
Date: Mon Jul 23 2001 - 15:50:50 PDT

  • Next message: Casey Schaufler: "Re: Patch Acceptance Procedure"

    * frm gregat_private "07/23/01 14:12:57 -0700" | sed '1,$s/^/* /'
    *
    * 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 :)
    
    I have no problems with only two people having write access to the repo, as
    long as there are policies and procedures that are followed before the repo
    is modified. 
    
    Unilateraly applying a patch without allowing for discussion gives the
    impression that the policy is "whatever goes". Maybe I'm just too hyper
    sensitive to this as I get to sit on so many release teams that I seem to
    spend half my life saying "no that can't go in until you've talked to
    <blah>" :-)
    
    If the policy really is whatever Chris and Greg decide, what happens if you
    two can't agree ? This is why formal policies and procedures are important,
    it removes the possibility of disagreements mortally affecting a project.
    
    * 
    * 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'm still working on it. Splitting the patch into 3 separate ones as you
    requested is taking a long time. 
    
    We still want to get the APIs changes into phase 1.
    
    * 
    * greg k-h
    * 
    
    richard.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Richard Offer                     Technical Lead, Trust Technology, SGI
    "Specialization is for insects"
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 - 15:51:37 PDT