On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 08:02:53PM -0400, jmjonesat_private wrote: > Okay, "hi Pollyanna"... *g* not sure what this means, but I like to > accomodate. I think it means "optimistic enough for several people". :) > It shifts the burden of "proof of necessity", which I *thought* was > "necessary in" instead of "in until necessary out". Aye; but further changes may render pieces unnecessary, redundant, etc. Or someone may propose a different method that is faster/smaller/more elegant. The end result still needs to be "necessary in" for the kernel guys to appreciate what we have done, and using it as a general guideline throughout will help meet that goal. > Also, there are numerous different weights to voices... there must be. Absolutely. But placing a weight on voices a priori isn't going to win friends. :) If any interested reader can spot a problem, great. No voting system will help in finding the problem, or solve the problem. > Probably, but, suppose I'm the sort of guy who claims a problem with > EVERYTHING ;-) what problems are significant, what are not? It depends upon the problem. :) Find one, guess at the level of damage it may mean, and bring it up. Folks will either say "nope, not a problem, the same <information, result, error> can be handled through a <faster, smaller, more elegent> mechanism". Or folks will say, "ouch, thanks for pointing this out", perhaps after some initial resistence. :) The comment may or may not matter on its own merits, no matter who says it, voting system or not to keep patches in or out, etc. I just don't think it is worth the hassle to set up a voting scheme. :) _______________________________________________ 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 - 17:18:29 PDT