Some kernel code-of-conduct refinements
I originally sent the first two patches in this series to a lot of kernel developers privately, to get their review and comments and see if they wanted to ack them. This is the traditional way we have always done for policy documents or other 'contentious' issues like the GPLv3 statement or the 'closed kernel modules are bad' statement. Due to the very unexpected way that the original Code of Conduct file was added to the tree, a number of developers asked if this series could also be posted publicly before they were merged, and so, here they are."
Posted Oct 22, 2018 8:36 UTC (Mon)
by rav (subscriber, #89256)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Oct 22, 2018 15:28 UTC (Mon)
by epa (subscriber, #39769)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Oct 22, 2018 18:47 UTC (Mon)
by samlh (subscriber, #56788)
[Link] (1 responses)
The obvious answer is the version in master at the time would apply.
Still, I'd be very surprised if the answer to this question was ever relevant.
If it did make a difference, humans are capable of judging things with nuance - we aren't robots.
Posted Oct 23, 2018 19:26 UTC (Tue)
by epa (subscriber, #39769)
[Link]
Finally the developers could be moved into git as well, so any offence taken could be simply reverted.
Some kernel code-of-conduct refinements
Some kernel code-of-conduct refinements
Some kernel code-of-conduct refinements
Some kernel code-of-conduct refinements