linux-kernel - Re: Using best practices for big software change possibilities

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]

Date:   Sun, 21 May 2017 12:45:46 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Dan Streetman <ddstreet@...e.org>,
        Seth Jennings <sjenning@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Using best practices for big software change possibilities

>> How do you think about to resolve them by additional means besides mail exchange?
> 
> That can work.

I am curious to find out which other communication means could really help here.

> E.g. meeting at conferences often solved mail communication problems.

I find my resources too limited at the moment to attend conferences on site.

How are the chances for further clarification by ordinary telephone calls?

> For now, I still wonder why you were unsure about grouping the changes
> into one patch?

I am varying the patch granularity for affected software areas to some degree.
But I came also places along where I got an impression for higher uncertainty.

> Maybe there is something to be learned?

This is also generally possible.

Would you like to extend the scope for the change pattern around questionable
error messages from a single source file to whole subsystem trees in Linux?

Regards,
Markus