| 1 |
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 3:21 AM, Pierre-Yves Rofes <py@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, March 10, 2009 7:07 am, Duncan wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Gordon Malm <gengor@g.o> posted |
| 4 |
>> 200903091617.48682.gengor@g.o, excerpted below, on Mon, 09 Mar |
| 5 |
>> 2009 16:17:48 -0700: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>>> There is an important security aspect to retiring folks - commit |
| 8 |
>>> abilities. Perhaps in the case a dev wants to contribute but cannot in |
| 9 |
>>> the near future their commit privs can just be revoked until such time |
| 10 |
>>> they ask for them to be turned back on? I guess that would be an |
| 11 |
>>> 'extended devaway' ? |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> [...] |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
>> We don't want some still active authorization and key |
| 17 |
>> from two years ago getting stolen and used to try to slip a bad commit |
| 18 |
>> under the radar [...] |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> With some devs reviewing gentoo-commits@, I highly doubt that this commit |
| 21 |
> could go unnoticed more than a few hours. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
really? cause I bet I could slip something in; now I'm motivated to try ;p |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> -- |
| 27 |
> Pierre-Yves Rofes |
| 28 |
> Gentoo Linux Security Team |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> |
Archives