linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] automatic CC generation for patch submission

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:	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/