Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About changing security policy to unCC maintainers when their are not needed
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:55:03
Message-Id: 1347476000.2365.14.camel@belkin4
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] About changing security policy to unCC maintainers when their are not needed by Jeroen Roovers
1 El mié, 12-09-2012 a las 20:29 +0200, Jeroen Roovers escribió:
2 > On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 19:59:01 +0200
3 > Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote:
4 >
5 > > Hello
6 > >
7 > > Currently, package maintainers are CCed to security bugs when their
8 > > are needed. The problem is that, once maintainers add a fixed version
9 > > and tell security team they are ok to get it stabilized, maintainers
10 > > are kept CCed until bug is closed by security team. This usually means
11 > > getting a lot of mail after some time when security team discuss if a
12 > > GLSA should be filled or not, if security bot adds some comment...
13 > > some of that comments are applied to really old bugs that need no
14 > > action from maintainers.
15 >
16 > So you would want to be re-CC'd when it is time to remove the vulnerable
17 > versions, I guess.
18
19 Personally, I have never been asked by them to remove old vulnerable
20 versions (and this refers to bugs I get from gnome and dotnet herds)
21
22 >
23 > Also, I have problems with stating "getting too much mail" as the
24 > actual problem.
25
26 The problem is that one and, also, getting a comment months after the
27 fixed version was stabilized with a comment like "GLSA vote = no" or
28 similar. That comment is only useful to security team.
29
30 > Perhaps your brain or your computer can smartly filter
31 > them out?
32
33 Perhaps things can be enhanced to not send useless mails that will need
34 to get removed just after they are get, this is pretty annoying when I
35 fetch a ton of mails after being out during August.
36
37 >
38 > > Maybe would be interesting to change the policy to unCC maintainers
39 > > again when their action is no longer required.
40 >
41 > You can un-CC yourself. I don't see why security@ should be doing the
42 > legwork.
43 >
44 >
45
46 It shouldn't be so hard to do, they can do it just when they CC arches,
47 instead of relaying some random team member to do it himself once a
48 useless message is received
49
50 > jer
51 >
52 >

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies