linux-kernel - Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 9 Oct 2007 08:27:57 +0200
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Scott Preece <sepreece@...il.com>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight

On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 08:11:53AM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > But for those that run test suites, they should be smart enough to put
> > in more documentation into the change log to state how it was tested.
> 
> I disagree.  The SCM changelog should contain _what_ a patch does and if
> necessary _why_ it does so.
The _why_ part is more important than _what_. The diff should hopefully
explain the _what_ part.

	Sam
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/