Am 10.07.20 um 12:36 schrieb Stafford Horne:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 08:14:09AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 08:41:54PM +0200, Alexander A. Klimov wrote:
Am 08.07.20 um 12:39 schrieb Greg KH:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 11:55:00AM +0200, Alexander A. Klimov wrote:
Rationale:
Reduces attack surface on kernel devs opening the links for MITM
as HTTPS traffic is much harder to manipulate.
Deterministic algorithm:
For each file:
If not .svg:
For each line:
If doesn't contain `\bxmlns\b`:
For each link, `\bhttp://[^# \t\r\n]*(?:\w|/)`:
If neither `\bgnu\.org/license`, nor `\bmozilla\.org/MPL\b`:
If both the HTTP and HTTPS versions
return 200 OK and serve the same content:
Replace HTTP with HTTPS.
Signed-off-by: Alexander A. Klimov <grandmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Your subject lines are very odd compared to all patches for this
subsystem, as well as all other kernel subsystems. Any reason you are
doing it this way and not the normal and standard method of:
USB: storage: replace http links with https
That would look more uniform as well as not shout at anyone.
I would agree. The OpenRISC patch for this series says:
"OPENRISC ARCHITECTURE:..."
Here it would just be "openrisc:..." I think fixing the whole series is needed.
Greg is not the only on complaining.
Ideally, I think, it would be good to have this sent out as a series i.e [PATCH 3/55]
rather than individual patches so this could be discussed as a whole.
1) To who? As right now? As right now plus Torvalds, KH, Miller, etc.?
As right now, but all-to-all?
2) Apropos "series" and "as whole"... I stumbled over
`git log --oneline |grep -Fwe treewide`
and am wondering:
*Shouldn't all of these patches even begin with "treewide: "?*
E.g.: "treewide: Replace HTTP links with HTTPS ones: GCC PLUGINS"
-Stafford
thanks,
greg k-h
Hi,
I'm very sorry.
As Torvalds has merged 93431e0607e5 and many of you devs (including big
maintainers like David Miller) just applied this stuff, I assumed that's OK.
And now I've rolled out tens of patches via shell loop... *sigh*
As this is the third (I think) change request like this, I assume this rule
applies to all subsystems – right?
Yes, you should try to emulate what the subsystem does, look at other
patches for the same files, but the format I suggested is almost always
the correct one. If not, I'm sure maintainers will be glad to tell you
otherwise :)
