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  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:	Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:27:04 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <>
To:	Linus Torvalds <>
Cc:	Stefan Richter <>,
	Theodore Tso <>, Ingo Molnar <>,
	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 Tue, 2009-10-27 at 12:06 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>  Don't lie about 
> getting an ack that you didn't get before you made that patch public.

But how do you get your ack without making it public?

But I do agree Signed-off-by is a must for every commit (if one is
missing, something is horribly broken). When I need an Acked-by
(touching a maintainer's code) I post an RFC branch (not to be pulled).

But for Tested-by, it is much easier for a tester to pull and test some
git branch than it is to pull patches from LKML.

And as we know, the easier it is to test, the more testers we have.

-- Steve

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