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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <>
To:	Stefan Richter <>
cc:	Theodore Tso <>, Ingo Molnar <>,
	Steven Rostedt <>,
	LKML <>,
	Nicolas Pitre <>,
	"Luck, Tony" <>,
	Stephen Rothwell <>,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <>,
	Jeff Garzik <>,
	Robert Richter <>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <>,
	Jean Delvare <>,
	Sam Ravnborg <>
Subject: Re: [RFC] to rebase or not to rebase on linux-next

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Per linux-next submission rules, all /essential/ credits are already
> present.  But I agree that it is worth rewinding a for-next branch in
> order to add (non-essential) credits later.

I'd actually personally prefer that people do _not_ generally add 
"credits" later.

Quite frankly, if something was committed without having been ack'ed by 
some person, then later - when that person sees it on a commit list, for 
example - it's worthless adding somebodys late ack.

Same largely goes for 'tested-by' lines. 

And 'signed-off-by' are actively _wrong_ to add later. If it didn't come 
with a sign-off in the first place, it shouldn't have been committed.

One reason I say this is that I really think it's wrong to even give 
credit to some late-comer that pipes in after the patch has already made 
it into somebody's tree. If they didn't comment on it while it was passed 
around as a patch on mailing lists, what's the point? By the time it's in 
somebody elses published tree, any "ack" is worthless, and that person 
should simply _not_ get credit for being late to the party.

So I think that there are many good reasons to rebase patches in your own 
tree, but I do _not_ think that "adding late acks" is one such reason. If 
you've published your tree to others, then it's done. Don't lie about 
getting an ack that you didn't get before you made that patch public.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists