| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20070630110331.GG10398@flower.upol.cz> Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:03:32 +0200 From: Oleg Verych <olecom@...wer.upol.cz> To: Dan Aloni <da-x@...atomic.org> Cc: Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [RFC] automatic CC generation for patch submission On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 01:26:01PM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote: [] > > As you will see, nobody cares about comprehensive > > patches/tests/bugs/testers/developers *tracking* system. > > > > And don't limit yourself to fast conclusions. Thanks. > > I am not proposing a comprehensive tracking system. I think > you are taking my intentions quite off-course. Don't you think that organized (i.e. Cc *management*: tracking system sends copies to _interested people_, as it was recorded earlier, or changed due to bouncing or off-line people; by-patch tracking of changes, tests, bugs, rc-bugs) way of dealing with patches is bad, but yet another fancy SPAM generator script and mess in ___kernel sources___ is OK just for publishing one's patches-ches-es? Having seen how bitkeeper improved *management* things in 2.5 - early2.6 period, i have no problem to blame propositions as yours. Heck, going to be another useless post... --- -o--=O`C #oo'L O <___=E M - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists