diff mbox series

[1/2] doc/security: clarify pre-release end of the embargo date

Message ID 20190617160648.8506-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com (mailing list archive)
State Accepted, archived
Delegated to: Thomas Monjalon
Headers
Series [1/2] doc/security: clarify pre-release end of the embargo date |

Checks

Context Check Description
ci/checkpatch success coding style OK
ci/Intel-compilation success Compilation OK

Commit Message

Ferruh Yigit June 17, 2019, 4:06 p.m. UTC 
  Clarify that a fixed date will be used for end of embargo (public
disclosure) date while communicating with downstream stakeholders.

Initial document got a review that it gives an impression that
communicated embargo date can be a range like 'less than a week' which
is not the case. The range applies when defining the end of the embargo
date but a fix date will be communicated.

Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
---
 doc/guides/contributing/vulnerability.rst | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

John McNamara July 30, 2019, 11:16 a.m. UTC | #1 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yigit, Ferruh
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 5:07 PM
> To: Mcnamara, John <john.mcnamara@intel.com>; Kovacevic, Marko
> <marko.kovacevic@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>; Maxime Coquelin
> <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] doc/security: clarify pre-release end of the embargo
> date
> 
> Clarify that a fixed date will be used for end of embargo (public
> disclosure) date while communicating with downstream stakeholders.
> 
> Initial document got a review that it gives an impression that
> communicated embargo date can be a range like 'less than a week' which is
> not the case. The range applies when defining the end of the embargo date
> but a fix date will be communicated.
> 

Acked-by: John McNamara <john.mcnamara@intel.com>
Thomas Monjalon May 24, 2020, 11:04 p.m. UTC | #2 
30/07/2019 13:16, Mcnamara, John:
> From: Yigit, Ferruh
> > Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 5:07 PM
> > 
> > Clarify that a fixed date will be used for end of embargo (public
> > disclosure) date while communicating with downstream stakeholders.
> > 
> > Initial document got a review that it gives an impression that
> > communicated embargo date can be a range like 'less than a week' which is
> > not the case. The range applies when defining the end of the embargo date
> > but a fix date will be communicated.
> > 
> 
> Acked-by: John McNamara <john.mcnamara@intel.com>

I don't know why these old patches were still pending.

Series applied, better late than never :)
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/doc/guides/contributing/vulnerability.rst b/doc/guides/contributing/vulnerability.rst
index a4bef4857..0d8432d56 100644
--- a/doc/guides/contributing/vulnerability.rst
+++ b/doc/guides/contributing/vulnerability.rst
@@ -182,7 +182,7 @@  When the fix is ready, the security advisory and patches are sent
 to downstream stakeholders
 (`security-prerelease@dpdk.org <mailto:security-prerelease@dpdk.org>`_),
 specifying the date and time of the end of the embargo.
-The public disclosure should happen in **less than one week**.
+The communicated public disclosure date should be **less than one week**
 
 Downstream stakeholders are expected not to deploy or disclose patches
 until the embargo is passed, otherwise they will be removed from the list.