On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 01:26:23PM +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
> On 01/28/2010 11:52 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 10:21 -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> >>>C'mon do we really need to make this into a fight? The reason why I
> >>>didn't implement it is that it would be temporary anyway and thus
> >>>doesn't worth the work, because it's not just that 10 lines of code
> >>>on ABRT side, it gets more people from different teams involved, so
> >>>that's why I decided not to do it. Yes, I should told you that and
> >>>I'm really sorry I didn't.
> >>Apparently we have different recollections of what we discussed.
> >So, amusing as this is, I would say we definitely need to have abrt
> >working for Alpha. (Actually, I might even propose we add that to the
> >release criteria). Alpha is scheduled for March 2nd, freeing Feb 16th.
> >Any chance you two could shelve the egos and fix this by then? Thanks.
> >I'll mark the bug an Alpha blocker.
> Sure, let's turn the page and get back to the devel discussion, so
> here is my proposal: We have the code for the solution that Neil was
> talking about, I've sent it to review to our security guys and if
> they don't have any objections then I'm fine pushing it, but if they
> do, we will need to find some other solution.
That actually needs to be the other way around. Based on the dicussion you and
I had privately, we agreed that you would have a user space solution ready to go
based on the proposal we hashed out. I was going to propose an upstream kernel
solution, which I've done here:
What we agreed was, that if the patch set is accepted, great. If not, the user
space solution is the only option. Currently, theres not alot of pushback, but
there have been some requests for revisions, and some other comments, so its
still up in the air how it will go, I'm working on a second draft now, and will
get it up as soon as I have time to complete it.