On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 11:24:28AM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote: > Currently, fsverity development is reusing the same mailing list, git repo > (though a different branch), and patchwork project as fscrypt --- mainly just > because I was a little lazy and didn't bother to ask for new ones: > > FSCRYPT: FILE SYSTEM LEVEL ENCRYPTION SUPPORT > [...] > L: linux-fscrypt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Q: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-fscrypt/list/ > T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/fscrypt/fscrypt.git > [...] > > FSVERITY: READ-ONLY FILE-BASED AUTHENTICITY PROTECTION > [...] > L: linux-fscrypt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Q: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-fscrypt/list/ > T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/fscrypt/fscrypt.git fsverity > [...] > > I think this is causing some confusion. It also makes it so that people can't > subscribe to the list for just one or the other. > > What would people say about having a separate mailing list, git repo, and > patchwork project for fsverity? So the fsverity entry would look like: > > FSVERITY: READ-ONLY FILE-BASED AUTHENTICITY PROTECTION > [...] > L: linux-fsverity@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Q: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-fsverity/list/ > T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/fsverity/fsverity.git > [...] > > For the branches in the git repo, I'm thinking of using 'for-next' and > 'for-current'. (I'd also update the fscrypt ones to match; currently they are > 'master' and 'for-stable'.) > > If people are okay with these changes, I'll send off the needed requests to > helpdesk and linux-next to make these changes, and send Linus a pull request to > update MAINTAINERS. (And update fsverity-utils to point to the new list.) > Any thoughts on this from anyone? - Eric
