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, 09 Oct 2007 08:11:53 +0200
From:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC:	"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>,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	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

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 rest (e.g. the sign-off tag to state
that the licensing is alright, and any other tags) should have its
meaning sufficiently defined outside the changelog.

Remember what the SCM changelog is for, i.e. what we do with it after
commit.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== =-=- -=--=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
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/