linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] arch/nios2 for v3.19

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	9 Dec 2014 20:06:38 -0500
From:	"George Spelvin" <linux@...izon.com>
To:	tglx@...utronix.de
Cc:	arnd@...db.de, lftan@...era.com, linux@...izon.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.horizon.com
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] arch/nios2 for v3.19

Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> It's a bit sad that all the reviewed/acked-by information which has
> been sent throughout the review process is completely lost.

Well, in the case here where the ack comes in after the pull request,
obviously only the merger (Linus) can add it, but for older ones,
it seems like an obvious git feature request to have comments in the
annotated tag automatically copied to the merge commit message draft.

That way, the subsystem maintainer could write a branch summary, like
the [PATCH 0/n] summaries that are popular, and have it automatically
included in the history.

That just seems a more sensible place to put things than the pull
request e-mail.

(Preserving the signed annotated tag object itself is another
intriguing possibility, but not only is it a huge format change
to create a way for a commit to point to a tag, but I also don't
see how to avoid tag name collision problems.)
--
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/