Re: [PATCH] Replace HTTP links with HTTPS ones: USB MASS STORAGE DRIVER

[Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 08:14:09AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 08:41:54PM +0200, Alexander A. Klimov wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Am 08.07.20 um 12:39 schrieb Greg KH:
> > > On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 11:55:00AM +0200, Alexander A. Klimov wrote:
> > > > Rationale:
> > > > Reduces attack surface on kernel devs opening the links for MITM
> > > > as HTTPS traffic is much harder to manipulate.
> > > > 
> > > > Deterministic algorithm:
> > > > For each file:
> > > >    If not .svg:
> > > >      For each line:
> > > >        If doesn't contain `\bxmlns\b`:
> > > >          For each link, `\bhttp://[^# \t\r\n]*(?:\w|/)`:
> > > > 	  If neither `\bgnu\.org/license`, nor `\bmozilla\.org/MPL\b`:
> > > >              If both the HTTP and HTTPS versions
> > > >              return 200 OK and serve the same content:
> > > >                Replace HTTP with HTTPS.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Alexander A. Klimov <grandmaster@al2klimov.de>
> > > 
> > > Your subject lines are very odd compared to all patches for this
> > > subsystem, as well as all other kernel subsystems.  Any reason you are
> > > doing it this way and not the normal and standard method of:
> > > 	USB: storage: replace http links with https
> > > 
> > > That would look more uniform as well as not shout at anyone.

I would agree.  The OpenRISC patch for this series says:
  "OPENRISC ARCHITECTURE:..."

Here it would just be "openrisc:..." I think fixing the whole series is needed.
Greg is not the only on complaining.

Ideally, I think, it would be good to have this sent out as a series i.e [PATCH 3/55]
rather than individual patches so this could be discussed as a whole.

-Stafford

> > > thanks,
> > > 
> > > greg k-h
> > > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I'm very sorry.
> > 
> > As Torvalds has merged 93431e0607e5 and many of you devs (including big
> > maintainers like David Miller) just applied this stuff, I assumed that's OK.
> > 
> > And now I've rolled out tens of patches via shell loop... *sigh*
> > 
> > As this is the third (I think) change request like this, I assume this rule
> > applies to all subsystems – right?
> 
> Yes, you should try to emulate what the subsystem does, look at other
> patches for the same files, but the format I suggested is almost always
> the correct one.  If not, I'm sure maintainers will be glad to tell you
> otherwise :)