linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add Internal-reference-ID: patch tag

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: <20110815140029.f9624d57.rdunlap@xenotime.net>
Date:	Mon, 15 Aug 2011 14:00:29 -0700
From:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
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 Mon, 15 Aug 2011 13:47:23 -0700 H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> 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.

OK, I see.

> I proposed:
> 
> Internal-reference-ID: <2011.0729.id1@...nlap> <33999@...gle>

You said (on July-31):
"Just to avoid namespace collisions, can we at least put the owner
somewhere standardized, e.g. <2011.0729.id1@...nlap>, <33999@...gle> and
so on?"

I read that as 2 different patches & 2 different IDs, but this more
recent line:
> Internal-reference-ID: <2011.0729.id1@...nlap> <33999@...gle>

would be for one patch with multiple IDs.


> Mike proposed:
> 
> Internal-reference-ID: <2011.0729.id1@...nlap>
> Internal-reference-ID: <bug-45322143@...gle>

I think that Mike was just giving 2 examples (for 2 patches).  His proposal
was simply for:
Internal-reference-ID: <arbitrarytextforid@...er>

which matches your request fairly well AFAICT.

But if we are changing things, I think I prefer your other suggestion
for the ID tag:  "Patch-ID".  I like it because it's shorter and
easier to type.  :)


> The only difference I see is if they are on the same line, which I don't
> personally care about.


---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
--
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/