Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:50:37 -0400 | From | "Jon Smirl" <> | Subject | Re: 463 kernel developers missing! |
| |
On 7/28/08, Rene Herman <rene.herman@keyaccess.nl> wrote: > On 29-07-08 02:14, Jon Smirl wrote: > > > > Why do these all end in (none)? > > Craig Hughes <craig@com.rmk.(none)> > > Dave Neuer <dneuer@org.rmk.(none)> > > David Brownell <david-b@net.rmk.(none)> > > David Woodhouse <dwmw2@org.rmk.(none)> > > Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@net.rmk.(none)> > > Enrico Scholz <enrico.scholz@de.rmk.(none)> > > > > Because rmk rewrites addresses to comply with privacy laws. Another good > example of why this nonsense of yours is exactly that. > > I checked and am personally in there three times, once even without any > valid email address listed. And any time there's anything other than my > gmail address in some submission it at least recently means that someone > _else_ took my from: address and stuck it on there and while I don't > terribly mind that generally, I find it really annoying to see even those > mistakes harvested into your hugely google-accessible resource.
The emails in the list are extracted from the commit log. I did not touch the emails. If your email is in there wrong it is in a log message wrong. That doesn't necessarily mean you are the person who put it into the log wrong, patches can get mangled when being passed along the maintainer chain. The point of this file is to turn the mistake back into something useful. Think of these are reverse mappings, they convert errors back to usable names.
As for privacy, if you don't want your email address in a file like this don't put it into a GPL'd public project. Generate a random name and email for each patch you submit. Of course I'm having trouble with a Signed-off-by: that can't be turned back into a person. Signed-off-by is there to track the responsibility chain for a patch and if the chain has been obfuscated what good is it?
> This is just yet another example of the senseless robotic crap people > people just insist is "needed" and "valueable", but which is neither. > > Nonsense it is. > > Rene. >
-- Jon Smirl jonsmirl@gmail.com
| |