| 1 |
On 13-12-2019 14:24:33 -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 12/13/19 9:28 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > We are providing those patches, maybe. In reality very often the |
| 5 |
> > patches originate from somewhere else though. And you don't want to |
| 6 |
> > have to respin all of those just because. At least that's what I feel. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Just because... the context changed? A new "!" in a line of context can |
| 10 |
> be the difference between letting someone log in with the right password |
| 11 |
> and letting them log in with the wrong password. You should at least |
| 12 |
> have to stop and verify that the patch does what you think it does when |
| 13 |
> it "gains" fuzz. And at that point, git diff will give you a clean |
| 14 |
> version of it. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Counter argument is that we've been doing this for decades, and always |
| 17 |
relied on maintainers to check the contents of their patches, without |
| 18 |
problems. We didn't introduce a predictable random number generator or |
| 19 |
something. |
| 20 |
Your very specific example just illustrates the niche this proposal is |
| 21 |
targetting. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
As with many of the proposals lately, they just seem to aim at more work |
| 24 |
for individual maintainers, with a very low gain ratio. |
| 25 |
Better, allow this to be a FEATURE, or whatever, that devs should enable, |
| 26 |
but don't spit this in the user's face by default. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Thanks, |
| 29 |
Fabian |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 33 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives