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: <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