linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH, RFC] A development process document

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:	Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:35:47 +0200
From:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To:	"Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@...otime.net>
CC:	Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@...ervon.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Alex Chiang <achiang@...com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Amanda McPherson <amanda@...pherson.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] A development process document

Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>> > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:23:05 -0600
>> > Alex Chiang <achiang@...com> wrote:
>> > > > +If you have a significant series of patches, it is customary to
>> > > > send an +introductory description as part zero.  In general, the
>> > > > second and
>> > > 
>> > > This directly conflicts with akpm's advice:
>> > > 
>> > > 	http://www.zipworld.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/tpp.txt
>> > > 
>> > > Section 6(b).
>> > 
>> > Interesting; Andrew didn't mention that in his review.  I think the intro
>> > postings can be very useful in understanding a patch series as a whole.
>> > Maybe I'll put in something about how anything which should be in the
>> > changelogs needs to go with the actual patches.
>> 
>> If you include a [0/N], it's a cover letter, not a changelog portion. It 
>> can be a useful way of providing context to reviewers as to the intended 
>> total effect. Each of the patches should make sense standalone, but it's 
>> not always clear from the individual patches what the total benefit is, 
>> and a 0/N that explains can be worthwhile (and you'd want to make that 
>> announcement to the mailing list, but not get it into the history).
> 
> but.. but Andrew often has to take part(s) of #0/N and add them to the
> changelog(s) to make the changelog(s) meaningful.  I.e., someone skimped
> on what should have been in the changelog(s).

That would not be a problem with the cover posting, it would be a
problem with the changelogs.  The same applies if the respective
information is put below the '---' delimiter line in the individual
patch postings.  So just remember that changelogs need to be
sufficiently comprehensive even when read standalone, out of the context
of the series.

BTW, I always like to see the -> combined diffstat <- of the whole patch
series in 0/N cover postings.  For this reason alone, a cover posting is
IMO generally recommendable for series of more than three or four
patches.  Especially if the reason for posting is a request for review
rather than transfer to a maintainer.

I think Andrew's advice in tpp is very valid in order to create "the
perfect patch", but not really how to post "the perfect review request".
-- 
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/