Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

doc: remove problematic example from README #23817

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

Trott
Copy link
Member

@Trott Trott commented Oct 22, 2018

Remove Buffer constructor example from security reporting examples. Even
though the example text focuses on API compatibility, the pull request
cited is about zero-filling vs. not zero-filling, which is not an API
compatibility change (or at least is not unambiguously one). The fact
that it's a pull request is also problematic, since it's not reporting a
security issue but instead proposing a way to address one that has
already been reported publicly. Finally, the text focuses on the fact
that it was not deemed worthy of backporting, but that was determined by
a vote by a divided CTC. It is unreasonable to ask someone reporting an
issue to make a determination that the CTC/TSC is divided on.

In short, it's not a good example for the list it is in. Remove it.

Refs: #23759 (comment)

Checklist
  • make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
  • documentation is changed or added
  • commit message follows commit guidelines

Remove Buffer constructor example from security reporting examples. Even
though the example text focuses on API compatibility, the pull request
cited is about zero-filling vs. not zero-filling, which is not an API
compatibility change (or at least is not unambiguously one). The fact
that it's a pull request is also problematic, since it's not reporting a
security issue but instead proposing a way to address one that has
already been reported publicly. Finally, the text focuses on the fact
that it was not deemed worth of backporting, but that was determined by
a vote by a divided CTC. It is unreasonable to ask someone reporting an
issue to make a determination that the CTC/TSC is divided on.

In short, it's not a good example for the list it is in. Remove it.

Refs: nodejs#23759 (comment)
@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented Oct 22, 2018

Copy link
Member

@mhdawson mhdawson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added the doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. label Oct 22, 2018
@vsemozhetbyt vsemozhetbyt added security Issues and PRs related to security. author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. labels Oct 22, 2018
@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented Oct 24, 2018

Landed in d214f41

@Trott Trott closed this Oct 24, 2018
Trott added a commit to Trott/io.js that referenced this pull request Oct 24, 2018
Remove Buffer constructor example from security reporting examples. Even
though the example text focuses on API compatibility, the pull request
cited is about zero-filling vs. not zero-filling, which is not an API
compatibility change (or at least is not unambiguously one). The fact
that it's a pull request is also problematic, since it's not reporting a
security issue but instead proposing a way to address one that has
already been reported publicly. Finally, the text focuses on the fact
that it was not deemed worth of backporting, but that was determined by
a vote by a divided CTC. It is unreasonable to ask someone reporting an
issue to make a determination that the CTC/TSC is divided on.

In short, it's not a good example for the list it is in. Remove it.

Refs: nodejs#23759 (comment)

PR-URL: nodejs#23817
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <trivikr.dev@gmail.com>
targos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 24, 2018
Remove Buffer constructor example from security reporting examples. Even
though the example text focuses on API compatibility, the pull request
cited is about zero-filling vs. not zero-filling, which is not an API
compatibility change (or at least is not unambiguously one). The fact
that it's a pull request is also problematic, since it's not reporting a
security issue but instead proposing a way to address one that has
already been reported publicly. Finally, the text focuses on the fact
that it was not deemed worth of backporting, but that was determined by
a vote by a divided CTC. It is unreasonable to ask someone reporting an
issue to make a determination that the CTC/TSC is divided on.

In short, it's not a good example for the list it is in. Remove it.

Refs: #23759 (comment)

PR-URL: #23817
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <trivikr.dev@gmail.com>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 26, 2018
Remove Buffer constructor example from security reporting examples. Even
though the example text focuses on API compatibility, the pull request
cited is about zero-filling vs. not zero-filling, which is not an API
compatibility change (or at least is not unambiguously one). The fact
that it's a pull request is also problematic, since it's not reporting a
security issue but instead proposing a way to address one that has
already been reported publicly. Finally, the text focuses on the fact
that it was not deemed worth of backporting, but that was determined by
a vote by a divided CTC. It is unreasonable to ask someone reporting an
issue to make a determination that the CTC/TSC is divided on.

In short, it's not a good example for the list it is in. Remove it.

Refs: #23759 (comment)

PR-URL: #23817
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <trivikr.dev@gmail.com>
@codebytere codebytere mentioned this pull request Nov 27, 2018
rvagg pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 28, 2018
Remove Buffer constructor example from security reporting examples. Even
though the example text focuses on API compatibility, the pull request
cited is about zero-filling vs. not zero-filling, which is not an API
compatibility change (or at least is not unambiguously one). The fact
that it's a pull request is also problematic, since it's not reporting a
security issue but instead proposing a way to address one that has
already been reported publicly. Finally, the text focuses on the fact
that it was not deemed worth of backporting, but that was determined by
a vote by a divided CTC. It is unreasonable to ask someone reporting an
issue to make a determination that the CTC/TSC is divided on.

In short, it's not a good example for the list it is in. Remove it.

Refs: #23759 (comment)

PR-URL: #23817
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <trivikr.dev@gmail.com>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 29, 2018
Remove Buffer constructor example from security reporting examples. Even
though the example text focuses on API compatibility, the pull request
cited is about zero-filling vs. not zero-filling, which is not an API
compatibility change (or at least is not unambiguously one). The fact
that it's a pull request is also problematic, since it's not reporting a
security issue but instead proposing a way to address one that has
already been reported publicly. Finally, the text focuses on the fact
that it was not deemed worth of backporting, but that was determined by
a vote by a divided CTC. It is unreasonable to ask someone reporting an
issue to make a determination that the CTC/TSC is divided on.

In short, it's not a good example for the list it is in. Remove it.

Refs: #23759 (comment)

PR-URL: #23817
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <trivikr.dev@gmail.com>
@codebytere codebytere mentioned this pull request Nov 29, 2018
@Trott Trott deleted the rm-buffer-constructor-example branch January 13, 2022 22:50
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. security Issues and PRs related to security.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants