linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/1] Create 'Reported:' and 'Reviewed:' tags for links in commit messages

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:   Mon, 22 Nov 2021 19:40:46 +0100
From:   Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     workflows@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/1] Create 'Reported:' and 'Reviewed:' tags for
 links in commit messages



On 22.11.21 18:04, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 10:12:33 -0500
> Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
>> As an alternative, I can offer that we continue to use Link: trailers with
>> extra data following the hashtag, as is already done for other trailers:
>>
>>     Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215101   #report
>>     Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/fobarbaz.5551212@localhost #review
>>
>> Note, that this merely for completeness, not in opposition to the proposal.

Thx, I'll mention those as a alternative in v2

>> I
>> find the "Link:" trailer to be semantically redundant, since what follows is
>> already clearly a hyperlink. Adding "Link: " in front of it is only necessary
>> for consistency and machine parsing reasons.
> 
> Machine parsing is the main reason for the Link: tag. I have scripts that
> key off of that tag and ignore any other "http" reference.
> 
> Perhaps the above is better, as it means we don't need to update our
> scripts for that parsing.

Hmmm. I'm not opposed, but I wonder if 'Reported:' and 'Reviewed:' are
this tiny bit easier to handle (both for placing and analyzing scripts)
that makes the difference between "nice idea, but fails to be used in
the field" and "after some tradition phase this becomes the new normal"
in the end.

Whatever, will mention that and point to this post in the next round.
Thx for the feedback!

Ciao, Thorsten