linux-kernel - Re: Fix quilt merge error in acpi-cpufreq.c

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: <20090416075651.GB4507@elte.hu>
Date:	Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:56:51 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Fix quilt merge error in acpi-cpufreq.c

* Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 04:17:49 am H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > "build fix" is valid and proper use: it tells that it
> > fixes a compilation error, which succinctly communicates both the
> > priority of the fix and how it needs to be validated.
> 
> Side note: I really prefer to see the compile error output in this 
> case: great for googling.  It annoys me when people skip this.
> 
> Anyway, Impact: had lead me to think harder about my messages than 
> the free-form commit style did.  Perhaps it's too rigid, but it 
> helped.

btw., and i think this is the crux of the matter, Rusty was quite 
sceptic about impact lines in the beginning, and did not like them 
_at all_. We had discussions (months ago) about it with Rusty and he 
had a similar position to other "read only" participants in this 
thread.

And i can tell it from the other side of the fence: Rusty's trees 
were very nice before, but they became _even_ nicer after he started 
using impact lines. It was very noticeable.

Impact lines are intentionally rigid - but all 'forced' measures 
(like signed-off lines, or a title, or other patch submission 
standards) are rigid in a way and they elicit an initial backlash 
from people who have never adhered to them before.

Impact lines have most of their effects on the people who _write_ 
them: contributors and first-hop maintainers. Their role becomes 
informative as the hops increase - and they might even become 
annoyingly meaningless and verbose as the hop count reaches Linus 
;-)

	Ingo
--
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/