[redhat-lspp] LSPP Development Telecon 10/16/2006 Minutes

[Venkat Yekkirala]

> >>Okay, I guess we will just have to wait and see; I'm afarid 
> >>this is still going
> >>to meet with disapproval
> >  
> > How do you know? You haven't even seen the new patchset
> > yet; even I haven't.
> 
> I'm afraid because all of your comments to date seem to indicate that
> the
> secmark field will be used in a manner which is not 
> compatibile with how
> it is
> used today.  Please prove me wrong with the next patchset and I'll be
> happy.

It seems like you didn't notice my queries on the alternatives to
the secmark handling in the proposed design. In the meanwhile please
keep your fears to yourself. You got to realize that I am frustrated
that my message hasn't gotten (for whatever reason) across. While you
have every right to say what you feel like, I just don't have the
patience to deal with two Jameses.

> 
> > I hope you quit proxying for James.
> 
> I'm only trying to throw out a warning that some
> requirements/constraints are
> not being addressed based on the current discussions.

And you don't need to. James will obviously decide if/as/when
I fo a next patchset.

>  I was 
> "tagged" to
> push
> the entire patchset upstream and I just want to make sure 
> that before I
> do
> everyone is happy.

I see. I didn't mean for you to broker between myself and James though.