From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] submodule: pass on http.extraheader config settings Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:50:31 -0400 Message-ID: <20160428165031.GA31421@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <3b71deffa5d07cf73a793773cc3d60ff611843fa.1461759454.git.johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> <89d0024450b0e6e9997ad9e3d681248bde1bafc0.1461837783.git.johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> <20160428112912.GB11522@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160428134953.GB25364@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160428153902.GF31063@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Jacob Keller , Johannes Schindelin , Junio C Hamano , Git mailing list To: Stefan Beller X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Apr 28 18:50:43 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1avp9F-00072F-Pb for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 18:50:42 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753487AbcD1Qug (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:50:36 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:58559 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753455AbcD1Quf (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:50:35 -0400 Received: (qmail 2840 invoked by uid 102); 28 Apr 2016 16:50:34 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:50:34 -0400 Received: (qmail 11963 invoked by uid 107); 28 Apr 2016 16:50:36 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:50:36 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:50:31 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 09:09:44AM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: > > I think the key thing with a blacklist is somebody has to go to the work > > to audit the existing keys. > > Would it be sufficient to wait until someone screams at the mailing list > for some key to be blacklisted? (I mean in the short term that would be > of less quality, but relying on the larger community would result in a better > end result? So your going through is just a jump start this process of > listening to the community?) Yeah, I think ultimately we will rely on the community. But I would feel a lot more comfortable if somebody made at least a single pass. I'll be curious what Junio says, too. I generally defer to him on how conservative we want to be in cases like this. -Peff