Re: Subscribing Apple people to git-security@googlegroups.com

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Jul 3, 2018, 15:48 UTC
Message-ID: <20180703154814.GA51821@aiede.svl.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180703133645.GA20316@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Administrivia: do you mind if I bounce these messages to some archived
list, either git@vger.kernel.org or git-security?  Or if we'd prefer
to avoid the noise from that, do you mind if I work with Eric Wong to
get them injected in the https://public-inbox.org/ archive?

Hi,

Jeff King wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 01:15:19PM -0700, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote:

>> I'm very very interested in having reduced differences between what we
>> ship in Xcode and what is upstream.

[...]

Show 11 quoted lines

> Thanks for sharing. Skimming over it, I see:
>
>  - several of the changes look related to run-time relocation. There was
>    a series that shipped in v2.18.0 related to this, so that may reduce
>    your diff once you rebase.
>
>  - The xcode_gitattributes() bits aren't likely to go upstream as-is.
>    But possibly these could ship as a default $sysconfdir/gitattributes?
>
>  - the rest look like assorted little fixes that probably could go
>    upstream

I agree with Peff's assessment. I'd also like to emphasize that upstream is happy to see an [FYI/PATCH] when you have a divergence, which would provide a thread to reply to to figure out whether there's some generalization that is suitable for upstream. (For example, maybe we want some Makefile knob to allow setting some baked-in attributes.)

Thanks, Jonathan