Separate mailing list (and git and patchwork) for fsverity?

Separate mailing list (and git and patchwork) for fsverity?

[Eric Biggers]

Currently, fsverity development is reusing the same mailing list, git repo
(though a different branch), and patchwork project as fscrypt --- mainly just
because I was a little lazy and didn't bother to ask for new ones:

FSCRYPT: FILE SYSTEM LEVEL ENCRYPTION SUPPORT
[...]
L:      linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org
Q:      https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-fscrypt/list/
T:      git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/fscrypt/fscrypt.git
[...]

FSVERITY: READ-ONLY FILE-BASED AUTHENTICITY PROTECTION
[...]
L:      linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org
Q:      https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-fscrypt/list/
T:      git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/fscrypt/fscrypt.git fsverity
[...]

I think this is causing some confusion.  It also makes it so that people can't
subscribe to the list for just one or the other.

What would people say about having a separate mailing list, git repo, and
patchwork project for fsverity?  So the fsverity entry would look like:

FSVERITY: READ-ONLY FILE-BASED AUTHENTICITY PROTECTION
[...]
L:      linux-fsverity@vger.kernel.org
Q:      https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-fsverity/list/
T:      git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/fsverity/fsverity.git
[...]

For the branches in the git repo, I'm thinking of using 'for-next' and
'for-current'.  (I'd also update the fscrypt ones to match; currently they are
'master' and 'for-stable'.)

If people are okay with these changes, I'll send off the needed requests to
helpdesk and linux-next to make these changes, and send Linus a pull request to
update MAINTAINERS.  (And update fsverity-utils to point to the new list.)

- Eric

Re: Separate mailing list (and git and patchwork) for fsverity?

[Eric Biggers]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 11:24:28AM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> Currently, fsverity development is reusing the same mailing list, git repo
> (though a different branch), and patchwork project as fscrypt --- mainly just
> because I was a little lazy and didn't bother to ask for new ones:
> 
> FSCRYPT: FILE SYSTEM LEVEL ENCRYPTION SUPPORT
> [...]
> L:      linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org
> Q:      https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-fscrypt/list/
> T:      git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/fscrypt/fscrypt.git
> [...]
> 
> FSVERITY: READ-ONLY FILE-BASED AUTHENTICITY PROTECTION
> [...]
> L:      linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org
> Q:      https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-fscrypt/list/
> T:      git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/fscrypt/fscrypt.git fsverity
> [...]
> 
> I think this is causing some confusion.  It also makes it so that people can't
> subscribe to the list for just one or the other.
> 
> What would people say about having a separate mailing list, git repo, and
> patchwork project for fsverity?  So the fsverity entry would look like:
> 
> FSVERITY: READ-ONLY FILE-BASED AUTHENTICITY PROTECTION
> [...]
> L:      linux-fsverity@vger.kernel.org
> Q:      https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-fsverity/list/
> T:      git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/fsverity/fsverity.git
> [...]
> 
> For the branches in the git repo, I'm thinking of using 'for-next' and
> 'for-current'.  (I'd also update the fscrypt ones to match; currently they are
> 'master' and 'for-stable'.)
> 
> If people are okay with these changes, I'll send off the needed requests to
> helpdesk and linux-next to make these changes, and send Linus a pull request to
> update MAINTAINERS.  (And update fsverity-utils to point to the new list.)
> 

Any thoughts on this from anyone?

- Eric

Re: Separate mailing list (and git and patchwork) for fsverity?

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 03:48:32PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > What would people say about having a separate mailing list, git repo, and
> > patchwork project for fsverity?  So the fsverity entry would look like:
> > 
> > FSVERITY: READ-ONLY FILE-BASED AUTHENTICITY PROTECTION
> > [...]
> > L:      linux-fsverity@vger.kernel.org
> > Q:      https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-fsverity/list/
> > T:      git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/fsverity/fsverity.git
> > [...]

This makes sense to me.  I wonder if we should use the new
https://lists.linux.dev mailing list hosting service with a mailing
list name fsverity@lsts.linux.dev?

The thinking was that we would eventually migrate lists from vger to
the new list infrastructure, so it might make sense to just use it for
a new list.  All mailing lists lists.linux.dev are archived on
lore.kernel.org, so other than the e-mail address and using something
a bit more modern than Majordomo for list management, it's mostly the
same.

						- Ted

Re: Separate mailing list (and git and patchwork) for fsverity?

[Eric Biggers]

On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 11:51:23AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 03:48:32PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > What would people say about having a separate mailing list, git repo, and
> > > patchwork project for fsverity?  So the fsverity entry would look like:
> > > 
> > > FSVERITY: READ-ONLY FILE-BASED AUTHENTICITY PROTECTION
> > > [...]
> > > L:      linux-fsverity@vger.kernel.org
> > > Q:      https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-fsverity/list/
> > > T:      git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/fsverity/fsverity.git
> > > [...]
> 
> This makes sense to me.  I wonder if we should use the new
> https://lists.linux.dev mailing list hosting service with a mailing
> list name fsverity@lsts.linux.dev?
> 
> The thinking was that we would eventually migrate lists from vger to
> the new list infrastructure, so it might make sense to just use it for
> a new list.  All mailing lists lists.linux.dev are archived on
> lore.kernel.org, so other than the e-mail address and using something
> a bit more modern than Majordomo for list management, it's mostly the
> same.
> 
> 						- Ted

Thanks Ted!  I'm half-tempted to still use linux-fsverity@vger.kernel.org, for
consistency with most of the existing lists...  But it does seem that the ship
on new lists using lists.linux.dev has already sailed.  So I think I'll go with
fsverity@lists.linux.dev.

Any other opinions from anyone on this, or on the proposed new git repo and
branches, before I send off the helpdesk request?

- Eric