the country doing the most cyber attacks wants to do its own linux forks. what could possibly go wrong
At first I thought you meant it’d be a bad fork, but then I realise you meant it’d be a bad fork.
As long as it’s open source and vetted by the public, I don’t see how it could go bad tbh
with blackjack and hookers
They haven’t been removed from the community though — just the maintainers list. Now they need someone else’s review to commit code to the kernel.
Personally, I think even maintainers should be required to have that — you can be the committer for pre-reviewed code from others, but not just be able to check anything you want in, no matter your reputation (even if you’re Linus). That way a security breach is less likely to cause havoc.
I find that difficult. Aside from code reviews, often times your job as a maintainer is:
- getting a refactor or code cleanup in while everyone’s asleep
- shuffling commits around between branches
- fixing the CI toolchain
- rolling back or repairing a broken change
- unfucking the repo
- fixing a security vulnerability
A required review slows all of these tasks to a crawl. I do agree that the kernel is important enough that it might be worth the trade-off.
But at the same, I do not feel like I could do my (non-kernel) maintainer job without direct commit access…
Good for them.
