Re: Patch Acceptance Procedure

From: Seth Arnold (sarnoldat_private)
Date: Mon Jul 23 2001 - 18:33:11 PDT

  • Next message: Chris Wright: "Re: State of Audit Proposal ?"

    On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 09:20:39PM -0400, jmjonesat_private wrote:
    > I have, on reliable authority, that this project is somewhat unique in its
    > approach.
    
    So far, this one seems about par for the course for me. :)
    
    > HE suggested a one-day review period.  You seem to agree with me that it
    > may be inadequate in some circumstances.  What circumstances?  This is a
    > truely cosmic conundrum, but a first-order answer is probably better than
    > none.
    
    I don't think Crispin intended for one day to be all the time allowed
    for preparation of a competing proposal -- just that one day is enough
    time to let someone look at a proposal and possibly complain if the idea
    seems inadequate or misguided.
    
    The actual process of replacing the 'faulty' patch could possibly take
    weeks.
    
    Waiting more than one day is going to slow the project down too much. We
    want to have something to take to 2.5.x for some small value of x. ;)
    But one day should be enough for someone to at least make a rough guess
    if the patch looks good or not.
    
    Does this answer the question? (Or was it intended for other members of
    the list? I can be quite self-centered when I feel like it. :)
    
    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 - 18:30:26 PDT