Re: Patch Acceptance Procedure

From: Seth Arnold (sarnoldat_private)
Date: Mon Jul 23 2001 - 17:41:09 PDT

  • Next message: jmjonesat_private: "Re: Patch Acceptance Procedure"

    On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 08:19:15PM -0400, jmjonesat_private wrote:
    [fd]
    > Proposed: passing fd's should be supported wherever possible in the
    > interface and will not constitute the sole reason for a rejection of a
    > patch.  Seconded?
    
    Well, the proposing comes in the form of patches. :) Richard or Casey
    has said they are breaking their patch into three pieces, and I am
    expecting one of them to be this file descriptor issue. And, I expect a
    debate to ensue along the lines of "audit already?" and "so simple, why
    not now?"
    
    [mac/dac ordering]
    > I have no opinion here, but I think it's boiled down to "why?"  DAC first
    > seems useful to some, MAC first seems more fitting with a semi-standard.  
    > Requesting proposal on way or another for 1 business day review.
    
    I have an idea it will take a bit more time than one day to take a look
    at this one; perhaps the worst part is that I don't think it is integral
    to anyone's final product -- just convenient for proponents of either
    point of view. As such, the debate on this one may go on a bit longer.
    
    [error codes in post hooks]
    > Sheesh, I have a sort of a life! :)  No Opinion.   But let's move on it if
    > somebody has a strong pro or con opinion.  We can discuss ourselves blue
    > in the face, but a technique for ending the discussion with a decision is
    > valuable.
    
    Well, thats the thing with this one -- no one has voiced any opionions
    on it yet, aside from the implicit opinion of SGI that it is worth
    having, since they put the time into making it so. :) I expect the
    arguments to sound a lot like the arguments on the first one, only
    without the "this is not useful" angle.
    
    > To date, it's been discussed, but every reader of this list COULD have a
    > different idea what the consensus is/was.
    
    True enough; other open source projects don't usually have too much
    trouble with the particulars though. Like you said, the sort-of lives we
    may or may not have tend to interfere.
    
    Cheers :)
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 - 17:38:27 PDT