linux-kernel - Re: Linux 3.2-rc1

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: <20111109152004.48f15384@tux.DEF.witbe.net>
Date:	Wed, 9 Nov 2011 15:20:04 +0100
From:	Paul Rolland (ポール・ロラン) 
	<rol@...be.net>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	rol@...be.net
Subject: Re: Linux 3.2-rc1

Hello,

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 18:10:02 -0800
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> Which brings me to a question I already asked on G+ - do people really
> need the old-fashioned patches? The -rc1 patch is about 22MB gzip-9'd,
> and part of the reason is that all those renames cause big
> delete/create diffs. We *could* use git rename patches, but then you'd
> have to apply them with "git apply" rather than the legacy "patch"
> executables. But as it is, the patch is almost a third of the size of
> the tar-ball, which makes me wonder if there's even any point to such
> a big patch?

Is that what made the various tarballs for 3.2-rc1 land
in /pub/linux/kernel/v3.x and not in testing/ ? ;)

I spent quite a lot of time wondering where they could be in testing/ until
I accidently found them...

Anyway, to answer the initial question: no, I don't use the patch-blah
files, only full tarballs.

Best,
Paul

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)