Re: [PATCH v3] embargoed releases: also describe the git-security list and the process

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Thanks, I incorporated all suggestions into the next version.

On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 5:11 PM Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 07:41:49AM +0000, Julia Ramer via GitGitGadget wrote:
> > ---
> > .../howto/coordinate-embargoed-releases.txt   | 175 +++++++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 147 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>
> This version looks great, thanks for your work polishing it up based on
> mine and Junio's review. I agree with what Junio said downthread in [1],
> and left a few minor nitpicks of my own.
>
> So, I don't have much to add beyond what Junio wrote. I suspect that
> between my feedback below and his in [1], that should be enough to get
> v4 ready to be queued.
>
> > +- The security-list members start a discussion to give an initial
>
> s/security-list members/members of the git-security list/.
>
> > +  assessment of the severity of the reported potential vulnerability.
> > +  We aspire to do so within a few days.
>
> Well put.
>
> > +- Code review can take place in a variety of different locations,
> > +  depending on context. These are: patches sent inline on the
> > +  git-security list, a private fork on GitHub associated with the
> > +  draft security advisory, or the git/cabal repository.
> > +
> > +  Contributors working on a fix should consider beginning by sending
> > +  patches to the git-security list (inline with the original thread),
> > +  since they are accessible to all subscribers, along with the original
> > +  reporter.
>
> There is some slightly odd wrapping between this and adjacent bullet
> points. It looks like the width of these lines is slightly shorter than
> the others.
>
> > +- Once the review has settled and everyone involved in the review agrees that
> > +  the patches are ready, the Git maintainer, and others determine a release date
> > +  as well as the release trains that are serviced. The decision regarding which
> > +  versions need a backported fix is based on input from the reporter, the
> > +  contributor who worked on the patches, and from stakeholders.   Operators
>
> There are a few extra spaces between "from stakeholders." and "Operators"
>
> Thanks,
> Taylor
>
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqo7u5m8ku.fsf@gitster.g/



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux