Re: [PATCH 2/2] Don't close pack fd when free'ing pack windows
- From
Brandon Casey <drafnel@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jul 31, 2013, 21:23 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CA+sFfMe935imbvt=XvaU2jZhf=KSf0xZdnrBDgYfUop0CtyWrA@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CALWbr2wR2cN8dcOtW2bV3p7FC3ymdXgfp61A4pNKvOWhP6WU_Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Antoine Pelisse <apelisse@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 13 quoted lines
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Brandon Casey <bcasey@nvidia.com> wrote: >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain >> confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution >> is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by >> reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I'm certainly not a lawyer, and I'm sorry for not reviewing the > content of the patch instead, but is that not a problem from a legal > point of view ? > I remember a video of Greg Kroah-Hartman where he talked about that > (the video was posted by Junio on G+).
Me either thank God. Are those footers even enforceable? I mean, really, if someone mistakenly sends me their corporate financial numbers am I supposed to be under some legal obligation not to share it? I always assumed it was a scare tactic that lawyers like to use.
To address the text of the footer, I'd say the "intended recipient(s)" are those on the "to" line which includes git@vger.kernel.org and the implicit use is for inclusion and distribution in the git source code.
Anyway, I doubt I would have any influence on getting the footer removed. If Junio would rather me not submit patches with that footer, then I'd try to find a workaround.
-Brandon