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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:27:04 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>, "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...il.com>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>, Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> 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 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