[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: sys-apps/microcode-ctl/

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: sys-apps/microcode-ctl/

[hasufell]

On 08/11/2015 08:34 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> commit:     719cc5ef240b766953ddbe1e7a6593f8091eed12
> Author:     Mike Frysinger <vapier <AT> gentoo <DOT> org>
> AuthorDate: Tue Aug 11 06:28:16 2015 +0000
> Commit:     Mike Frysinger <vapier <AT> gentoo <DOT> org>
> CommitDate: Tue Aug 11 06:34:22 2015 +0000
> URL:        https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=719cc5ef
> 
> microcode-ctl: stop installing the init script
> 
> Updating microcode on the fly is dangerous as it can modify the set of
> valid instructions.  An active example of this is Intel's TSX insns --
> the latest microcode push disables the insn on newer CPUs and causes
> SIGILL when you try to use it.  But if you test for the insn before the
> microcode is updated, it will execute fine.  For daemons that launched
> before the update, they'll find the flag works, and then crash later on
> when the insn no longer exists.
> 
> Thus the only safe way to update microcode is at boot time via a builtin
> initramfs.  Details on this operation can be found in #528712#41.
> 

I've already asked you twice on the ML why you keep ignoring the
standard we set for the commit message summary and pretty much everyone
is following except you.

Do you ignore us on purpose?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: sys-apps/microcode-ctl/

[Andrew Savchenko]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1613 bytes --]

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:17:10 +0200 hasufell wrote:
> On 08/11/2015 08:34 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > commit:     719cc5ef240b766953ddbe1e7a6593f8091eed12
> > Author:     Mike Frysinger <vapier <AT> gentoo <DOT> org>
> > AuthorDate: Tue Aug 11 06:28:16 2015 +0000
> > Commit:     Mike Frysinger <vapier <AT> gentoo <DOT> org>
> > CommitDate: Tue Aug 11 06:34:22 2015 +0000
> > URL:        https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=719cc5ef
> > 
> > microcode-ctl: stop installing the init script
> > 
> > Updating microcode on the fly is dangerous as it can modify the set of
> > valid instructions.  An active example of this is Intel's TSX insns --
> > the latest microcode push disables the insn on newer CPUs and causes
> > SIGILL when you try to use it.  But if you test for the insn before the
> > microcode is updated, it will execute fine.  For daemons that launched
> > before the update, they'll find the flag works, and then crash later on
> > when the insn no longer exists.
> > 
> > Thus the only safe way to update microcode is at boot time via a builtin
> > initramfs.  Details on this operation can be found in #528712#41.
> > 
> 
> I've already asked you twice on the ML why you keep ignoring the
> standard we set for the commit message summary and pretty much everyone
> is following except you.

Let me remind you that:
1. this is not a standard, but a draft;
2. not all issues are clear right now (e.g. how to reference bugs);
3. it is not approved by the Council;
4. not everyone agrees with these rules anyway.

Best regards,
Andrew Savchenko

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: sys-apps/microcode-ctl/

[hasufell]

On 08/12/2015 08:48 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:17:10 +0200 hasufell wrote:
>> On 08/11/2015 08:34 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> commit:     719cc5ef240b766953ddbe1e7a6593f8091eed12
>>> Author:     Mike Frysinger <vapier <AT> gentoo <DOT> org>
>>> AuthorDate: Tue Aug 11 06:28:16 2015 +0000
>>> Commit:     Mike Frysinger <vapier <AT> gentoo <DOT> org>
>>> CommitDate: Tue Aug 11 06:34:22 2015 +0000
>>> URL:        https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=719cc5ef
>>>
>>> microcode-ctl: stop installing the init script
>>>
>>> Updating microcode on the fly is dangerous as it can modify the set of
>>> valid instructions.  An active example of this is Intel's TSX insns --
>>> the latest microcode push disables the insn on newer CPUs and causes
>>> SIGILL when you try to use it.  But if you test for the insn before the
>>> microcode is updated, it will execute fine.  For daemons that launched
>>> before the update, they'll find the flag works, and then crash later on
>>> when the insn no longer exists.
>>>
>>> Thus the only safe way to update microcode is at boot time via a builtin
>>> initramfs.  Details on this operation can be found in #528712#41.
>>>
>>
>> I've already asked you twice on the ML why you keep ignoring the
>> standard we set for the commit message summary and pretty much everyone
>> is following except you.
> 
> Let me remind you that:
> 1. this is not a standard, but a draft;
> 2. not all issues are clear right now (e.g. how to reference bugs);
> 3. it is not approved by the Council;
> 4. not everyone agrees with these rules anyway.
> 

So you want to sabotage consistency and wait until the council approves
every minor detail that has been worked out by the community? These
things WERE discussed (half a year ago or more) and there was consensus.
Things that are still not clear (such as referencing bug reports) were
not added to the wiki. Don't mix things up.

If we say everyone is allowed to ignore all the rules as long as it
repoman-checks, then I don't know why I even keep throwing out
discussions, emails and editing the wiki. Commit message format is
really not a workflow-limiting thing. I don't know why you complain like
that.

And vapier has not participated much in that discussion and has not
expressed his interest in a different format. So how is anyone supposed
to react to that?

This is not constructive.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: sys-apps/microcode-ctl/

[hasufell]

On 08/12/2015 12:11 PM, hasufell wrote:
> On 08/12/2015 08:48 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:17:10 +0200 hasufell wrote:
>>> On 08/11/2015 08:34 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>> commit:     719cc5ef240b766953ddbe1e7a6593f8091eed12
>>>> Author:     Mike Frysinger <vapier <AT> gentoo <DOT> org>
>>>> AuthorDate: Tue Aug 11 06:28:16 2015 +0000
>>>> Commit:     Mike Frysinger <vapier <AT> gentoo <DOT> org>
>>>> CommitDate: Tue Aug 11 06:34:22 2015 +0000
>>>> URL:        https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=719cc5ef
>>>>
>>>> microcode-ctl: stop installing the init script
>>>>
>>>> Updating microcode on the fly is dangerous as it can modify the set of
>>>> valid instructions.  An active example of this is Intel's TSX insns --
>>>> the latest microcode push disables the insn on newer CPUs and causes
>>>> SIGILL when you try to use it.  But if you test for the insn before the
>>>> microcode is updated, it will execute fine.  For daemons that launched
>>>> before the update, they'll find the flag works, and then crash later on
>>>> when the insn no longer exists.
>>>>
>>>> Thus the only safe way to update microcode is at boot time via a builtin
>>>> initramfs.  Details on this operation can be found in #528712#41.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've already asked you twice on the ML why you keep ignoring the
>>> standard we set for the commit message summary and pretty much everyone
>>> is following except you.
>>
>> Let me remind you that:
>> 1. this is not a standard, but a draft;
>> 2. not all issues are clear right now (e.g. how to reference bugs);
>> 3. it is not approved by the Council;
>> 4. not everyone agrees with these rules anyway.
>>
> 
> So you want to sabotage consistency and wait until the council approves
> every minor detail that has been worked out by the community? These
> things WERE discussed (half a year ago or more) and there was consensus.
> Things that are still not clear (such as referencing bug reports) were
> not added to the wiki. Don't mix things up.
> 
> If we say everyone is allowed to ignore all the rules as long as it
> repoman-checks, then I don't know why I even keep throwing out
> discussions, emails and editing the wiki. Commit message format is
> really not a workflow-limiting thing. I don't know why you complain like
> that.
> 
> And vapier has not participated much in that discussion and has not
> expressed his interest in a different format. So how is anyone supposed
> to react to that?
> 
> This is not constructive.
> 

And as I see it, even vapier does it now. So everything is good.

https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=3581b2c101337dec32c2bd6779db7927ff96732a

It was probably related to repoman lacking proper support there. Thanks
for your cooperation.