| 1 |
"Pierre-Yves Rofes" <py@g.o> posted |
| 2 |
a4345526fd26a2a6f5dd3cccb4e9767d.squirrel@××××××××××.fr, excerpted below, |
| 3 |
on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:21:55 +0100: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
>> We don't want some still active authorization and key |
| 6 |
>> from two years ago getting stolen and used to try to slip a bad commit |
| 7 |
>> under the radar [...] |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> With some devs reviewing gentoo-commits@, I highly doubt that this |
| 10 |
> commit could go unnoticed more than a few hours. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
That's a relatively new and very good change, and may indeed change the |
| 13 |
thinking on this one, some. But why even risk that when (as rane just |
| 14 |
posted) there's all deliberate effort to contact on the way out and a |
| 15 |
fast return, for someone who hasn't put an away up, has ignored the |
| 16 |
contact efforts or after being contacted said yes, retire me, and who |
| 17 |
hasn't had any commits in months already, with no indication that's going |
| 18 |
to change. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Can you imagine the PR on even a few hours' breach, when it turns out |
| 21 |
they'd been inactive for years, but their login was still active? Would |
| 22 |
you want it to be /your/ machines affected? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Yes, it can happen with even active devs, but the risk is considered |
| 25 |
worth it there. But devs that have been inactive for months or years, |
| 26 |
and who have ignored contacts or even asked to be retired after the |
| 27 |
contact? IMO that's needless risk, (almost) entirely down-side (with |
| 28 |
"almost" in there only as a CYA on an otherwise absolute "entirely"), |
| 29 |
especially when reuptake is (as posted) so fast. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 33 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 34 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives