On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 5:07 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 09:39:31AM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 7:09 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 04:05:53PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > > > > > Now back to the merge into the VFS tree ... I was very surprised to > > > > open this patchset and see that Christian had merged v5 after less > > > > than 24 hours (at least according to the email timestamps that I see) > > > > and without an explicit ACK for the SELinux changes. I've mentioned > > > > this to you before Christian, please do not merge any SELinux, LSM > > > > framework, or audit related patches without an explicit ACK. I > > > > > > Things go into the tree for testing when the VFS side is ready for > > > testing. We're at v5 and the patchset has gone through four iterations > > > over multiple months. It will go into linux-next and fs-next now for as > > > much expsure as possible. > > > > > > I'm not sure what the confusion between merging things into a tree and > > > sending things upstream is. I have explained this to you before. The > > > application message is also pretty clear about that. > > > > I'm not sure what the confusion is around my explicit request that you > > refrain from merging anything that touches the LSM framework, SELinux, > > or the audit subsystem without an explicit ACK. I have explained this > > to you before. > > > > For the record, your application/merge email makes no statement about > > only sending patches to Linus that have been ACK'd by all relevant > > parties. The only statement I can see in your email that remotely > > relates to ACKs is this: > > > > "It's encouraged to provide Acked-bys and Reviewed-bys > > even though the patch has now been applied. If possible > > patch trailers will be updated." > > > > ... which once again makes no claims about holding back changes that > > have not been properly ACK'd. > > If seems you're having difficulties understanding that included patches > are subject to be updated from this content. I'm having difficulties reconciling the inconsistencies between what you've said here (which is presumably your actual policy/behavior?) and what you've said in your merge emails. -- paul-moore.com
