| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 13:47:23 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net> CC: Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add Internal-reference-ID: patch tag On 08/15/2011 01:23 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 11:27:53 -0700 H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >> On 08/15/2011 10:39 AM, Mike Waychison wrote: >>>> >>>> I would like to see the <id@...er> format I mentioned. >>> >>> Is there a middle ground if we say: >>> >>> Internal-reference-ID: <arbitrarytextforid@...er> >>> >>> so >>> >>> Internal-reference-ID: <2011.0729.id1@...nlap> >>> Internal-reference-ID: <bug-45322143@...gle> >>> >> >> Personally I don't care if they are separate lines or all on the same line. > > I don't understand how that answers Mike's question... > Then I don't understand the question. I proposed: Internal-reference-ID: <2011.0729.id1@...nlap> <33999@...gle> Mike proposed: Internal-reference-ID: <2011.0729.id1@...nlap> Internal-reference-ID: <bug-45322143@...gle> The only difference I see is if they are on the same line, which I don't personally care about. -hpa -- 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