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: <20071009062757.GA22303@uranus.ravnborg.org> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 08:27:57 +0200 From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> To: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, "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>, 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 On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 08:11:53AM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote: > 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 _why_ part is more important than _what_. The diff should hopefully explain the _what_ part. Sam - 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