linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] Why no v2?

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: <59bbc7c4-2caf-205e-c968-13dffccea3aa@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Wed, 13 Sep 2023 09:01:54 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Daniel Matyas <daniel.matyas@...log.com>
Cc:     Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Why no v2?

On 9/13/23 08:21, Daniel Matyas wrote:
> This is kind of v2, but not exactly. Major changes were applied and
> commits were separated. The latter is the main reason why I did not call
> this v2.
> 

That is neither a reason nor a valid argument. Just call it v2 and mark
the added patch(es) with a changelog along the line of "v2: Added patch".

And a subject of "Why no v2?" is really useless and pointless.

Guenter