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: <4EBAB5F7.80000@xenotime.net>
Date:	Wed, 09 Nov 2011 09:18:47 -0800
From:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.2-rc1

On 11/07/2011 06:10 PM, Linus Torvalds 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?

[email was too long/noisy, sorry for the delayed reply.]
[should I admit that I don't follow you on g+ ?]


Do you mean files like patch-3.2-rc1.gz or .bz2 or .xz?
Yes, I use them, but if I am the only user of them, I'll get over it.

-- 
~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/