linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] docs: add a text about regressions to the Linux kernel's documentation

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:   Fri, 7 Jan 2022 17:41:15 +0100
From:   Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        workflows@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] docs: add a text about regressions to the
 Linux kernel's documentation

On 07.01.22 17:28, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 03:21:00PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> 'We don't cause regressions' might be the first rule of Linux kernel
>> development, but it and other aspects of regressions nevertheless are hardly
>> described in the Linux kernel's documentation. The following two patches change
>> this by creating a document dedicated to the topic.
>>
>> The second patch could easily be folded into the first one, but was kept
>> separate, as it might be a bit controversial. This also allows the patch
>> description to explain some backgrounds for this part of the document.
>> Additionally, ACKs and Reviewed-by tags can be collected separately this way.
>>
>> v2/RFC:
>> - a lot of small fixes, most are for spelling mistakes and grammar
>>   errors/problems pointed out in the review feedback I got so far
>> - add ACK for the series from Greg
> 
> My ack seems not to be here :(

Huh, how did that happen? Sorry, thx for pointing it out, will be in v3.

> Also, this is a "real" series, no need for a RFC anymore, right?

I was taken a bit back-and-forth and then settled on calling this one
still RFC, as I was unsure if people Jon might want to wait on feedback
from Linus before they take