doc: remove problematic example from README #23817
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
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)
cjihrig
approved these changes
Oct 22, 2018
targos
approved these changes
Oct 22, 2018
lpinca
approved these changes
Oct 22, 2018
vsemozhetbyt
added
security
trivikr
approved these changes
Oct 24, 2018
|
Landed in d214f41 |
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>
This was referenced Nov 2, 2018
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>
Closed
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>
Merged
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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), orvcbuild test(Windows) passes