On Tue, 16 Dec 2014, Seth Jennings wrote:
> I think that we have something that is workable for everyone now.
> Barring functional defects, I think we should put a hold on any nits to
> avoid churn for the moment and start gathering acks so that we are in a
> position to go into -next when the
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:21:47AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:58:17AM -0600, Seth Jennings wrote:
> > Changelog:
> >
> > Thanks for all the feedback!
> >
> > I think that we have something that is workable for everyone now. Barring
> > functional defects, I think w
(2014/12/17 2:58), Seth Jennings wrote:
> Changelog:
>
> Thanks for all the feedback!
>
> I think that we have something that is workable for everyone now. Barring
> functional defects, I think we should put a hold on any nits to avoid churn
> for
> the moment and start gathering acks so that w
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:58:17AM -0600, Seth Jennings wrote:
> Changelog:
>
> Thanks for all the feedback!
>
> I think that we have something that is workable for everyone now. Barring
> functional defects, I think we should put a hold on any nits to avoid churn
> for
> the moment and start g
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 01:22:21PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Dec 2014, Balbir Singh wrote:
> >
> >> >> Could you describe what this does to signing? I presume the patched
> >> >> module should cause a taint on module signing?
>
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2014, Balbir Singh wrote:
>
>> >> Could you describe what this does to signing? I presume the patched
>> >> module should cause a taint on module signing?
>> >
>> > Hmm, why should it?
>>
>> I wanted to clarify it from a differe
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014, Balbir Singh wrote:
> >> Could you describe what this does to signing? I presume the patched
> >> module should cause a taint on module signing?
> >
> > Hmm, why should it?
>
> I wanted to clarify it from a different perspective
>
> If the base image is signed by X and the p
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 1:44 AM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2014, Balbir Singh wrote:
>
>> Could you describe what this does to signing? I presume the patched
>> module should cause a taint on module signing?
>
> Hmm, why should it?
>
I wanted to clarify it from a different perspective
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 12:35 AM, Seth Jennings wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:45:12PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Seth Jennings wrote:
>> >
>> > Changelog:
>> >
>> > Thanks for all the feedback!
>> >
>>
>> Could you describe what this does to signing? I p
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014, Balbir Singh wrote:
> Could you describe what this does to signing? I presume the patched
> module should cause a taint on module signing?
Hmm, why should it?
- if module signatures are enforced on the system in question, the module
with the patch itself has to be signed
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:45:12PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Seth Jennings wrote:
> >
> > Changelog:
> >
> > Thanks for all the feedback!
> >
>
> Could you describe what this does to signing? I presume the patched
> module should cause a taint on module signin
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Seth Jennings wrote:
>
> Changelog:
>
> Thanks for all the feedback!
>
Could you describe what this does to signing? I presume the patched
module should cause a taint on module signing?
Balbir Singh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe li
Changelog:
Thanks for all the feedback!
I think that we have something that is workable for everyone now. Barring
functional defects, I think we should put a hold on any nits to avoid churn for
the moment and start gathering acks so that we are in a position to go into
-next when the 3.19 window
13 matches
Mail list logo
