Report on University of Minnesota Breach-of-Trust Incident

So we have a massive overreaction by the kernel developers, which still refuse to issue a public apology to the UMN team for their overreaction.

We have 5 (not 3) hypocrite commits (easily detectable as James Bond). 39 bad quality patches, which do occur all the time, and the majority (349) of fixes were good, but were identified by the main Linux maintainer as malicious.

I still see the breach of trust issue with the James Bond patches, but the after that was typical Linux. Not our fault, the others are to blame.

> All patch submissions that were invalid were caught, or ignored, by the Linux kernel developers and maintainers. Our patch-review processes worked as intended when confronted with these malicious patches.

Starting a public worldnews shitshow after two bad quality patches cannot really be summarized like that. As UMN said from the beginning, there was no damage done. The breach of trust goes into the other direction likewise.