linux-kernel - Re: Clarification for the use of additional fields in the message body

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: <559CED4C.1080402@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:	Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:28:44 +0200
From:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:	Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@...il.com>
Cc:	Frans Klaver <fransklaver@...il.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Chris Park <chris.park@...el.com>,
	Dean Lee <dean.lee@...el.com>,
	Johnny Kim <johnny.kim@...el.com>,
	Rachel Kim <rachel.kim@...el.com>,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Clarification for the use of additional fields in the message
 body

> If it's harmless, then no, but in this case, people are questioning
> why you're adding it as it adds no value

Some Git software developers care to keep the information complete
for the author commit.


> to anyone and makes it look like you don't know what you're doing.

I specify message field overrides in my update suggestions intentionally.


> The issue is that the headers you're adding, From: and Date: are unnecessary.

We have got different opinions about the purpose.


> The From: header you add is unnecessary as your email's From: header
> has the exact same information.

I would like to point out that there is a slight difference in my use case.


> The reason it's there is because sometimes people forward patches on
> from other people, e.g. if I were to resend one of your patches,
> I'd add a From: header to the body of the email so it'd be credited to you.

I am also interested in such an use case.


> The Date: header you add is unnecessary as git-format-patch sets the
> date header in the email it produces to the author date stored in the commit.

How do you think about my extra patch preparation for the mentioned
mail forwarding?


> So if you're sending your patches in emails produced by git-format-patch,
> there's absolutely no reason to include it.

I disagree here to some degree.

The difference in suggested commit timestamps of a few minutes might look
negligible for some patches. There are few occasions where the delay between
a concrete commit and its publishing by an interface like email
can become days.


> They are both almost completely irrelevant for most workflows as people
> are less interested in when a commit was made and more interested in what
> release it's in, how it was merged, etc. All of which should be
> determined without using the timestamp.

How often will it matter who made and published a change first?


> To be honest, I've only ever used that timestamp for reporting
> purposes at work, and I'd be surprised if anyone was doing anything
> other than that with them.

Thanks for your detailed feedback.


> How would you feel if someone came in to your place of work
> and told you to change how you do the job you've been doing for years
> without a good reason?

You might feel uncomfortable for a moment if you would interpret
such a suggestion as a personal attack.

I guess that I point only a few technical details out which can change
the popularity of existing functionality from the Git software.

Regards,
Markus
--
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/