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]
Message-ID: <470B1BA9.7080509@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists