On 10/18/18 12:57, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-10-18 at 19:49 +, tim.b...@sony.com wrote:
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Frank Rowand
>>>
>>> On 10/18/18 07:56, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 12:53 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 10/17/18 12:08, James
On 10/18/18 12:57, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-10-18 at 19:49 +, tim.b...@sony.com wrote:
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Frank Rowand
>>>
>>> On 10/18/18 07:56, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 12:53 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 10/17/18 12:08, James
On Thu, 2018-10-18 at 19:49 +, tim.b...@sony.com wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Frank Rowand
> >
> > On 10/18/18 07:56, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 12:53 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> > > > On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> >
On Thu, 2018-10-18 at 19:49 +, tim.b...@sony.com wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Frank Rowand
> >
> > On 10/18/18 07:56, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 12:53 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> > > > On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: Frank Rowand
>
> On 10/18/18 07:56, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 12:53 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >> On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote:
> > [...]
> Trying to understand how you are understanding my comment vs what
> I
> -Original Message-
> From: Frank Rowand
>
> On 10/18/18 07:56, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 12:53 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >> On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote:
> > [...]
> Trying to understand how you are understanding my comment vs what
> I
On 10/18/18 07:56, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 12:53 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote:
> [...]
Trying to understand how you are understanding my comment vs what
I intended to communicate, it seems to me that you are focused on
On 10/18/18 07:56, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 12:53 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote:
> [...]
Trying to understand how you are understanding my comment vs what
I intended to communicate, it seems to me that you are focused on
On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 12:53 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote:
[...]
> > > Trying to understand how you are understanding my comment vs what
> > > I intended to communicate, it seems to me that you are focused on
> > > the "where allowed" and I am focused on the
On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 12:53 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote:
[...]
> > > Trying to understand how you are understanding my comment vs what
> > > I intended to communicate, it seems to me that you are focused on
> > > the "where allowed" and I am focused on the
On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 11:49 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 10/16/18 19:41, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 19:10 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> [...]
Repeating my comment on version 1:
My understanding of the concern
On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 11:49 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 10/16/18 19:41, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 19:10 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> [...]
Repeating my comment on version 1:
My understanding of the concern
Hello,
On 17/10/2018 11:49:06-0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> Permission vs exclusion is orthogonal to my comments.
>
> "building linux" is not the patch wording. "ordinarily collected by the
> project" is a much broader universe.
>
> A very simplistic definition of public _could_ be:
>
> -
Hello,
On 17/10/2018 11:49:06-0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> Permission vs exclusion is orthogonal to my comments.
>
> "building linux" is not the patch wording. "ordinarily collected by the
> project" is a much broader universe.
>
> A very simplistic definition of public _could_ be:
>
> -
On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 11:49 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 10/16/18 19:41, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 19:10 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
[...]
> > > Repeating my comment on version 1:
> > >
> > > My understanding of the concern behind this change is that we
> > > should be
On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 11:49 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 10/16/18 19:41, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 19:10 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
[...]
> > > Repeating my comment on version 1:
> > >
> > > My understanding of the concern behind this change is that we
> > > should be
On 10/17/18 11:49 AM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 10/16/18 19:41, James Bottomley wrote:
>> On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 19:10 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>> On 10/16/18 07:58, James Bottomley wrote:
The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers
publishing
private
On 10/17/18 11:49 AM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 10/16/18 19:41, James Bottomley wrote:
>> On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 19:10 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>> On 10/16/18 07:58, James Bottomley wrote:
The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers
publishing
private
On 10/16/18 19:41, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 19:10 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 10/16/18 07:58, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers
>>> publishing
>>> private information such as email addresses unacceptable
>>>
On 10/16/18 19:41, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 19:10 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 10/16/18 07:58, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers
>>> publishing
>>> private information such as email addresses unacceptable
>>>
On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 19:10 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 10/16/18 07:58, James Bottomley wrote:
> > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers
> > publishing
> > private information such as email addresses unacceptable
> > behaviour. Since
> > the Linux kernel collects
On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 19:10 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 10/16/18 07:58, James Bottomley wrote:
> > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers
> > publishing
> > private information such as email addresses unacceptable
> > behaviour. Since
> > the Linux kernel collects
On 10/16/18 07:58, James Bottomley wrote:
> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing
> private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since
> the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch
> process, add an
On 10/16/18 07:58, James Bottomley wrote:
> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing
> private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since
> the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch
> process, add an
24 matches
Mail list logo
