On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, pageexec@freemail.hu wrote:Umm. What part of "they are just normal bugs" did you have issues with? I expressly told you that security bugs should not be marked as such, because bugs are bugs. No. You have two cases: - people think the marking is somehow trustworthy. People are WRONG, and are misled by the partial markings, thinking that unmarked bugfixes are "less important". They aren't. - People don't think it matters People are right, and the marking is pointless. In either case it's just stupid to mark them. I don't want to do it, because I don't want to perpetuate the myth of "security fixes" as a separate thing from "plain regular bug fixes". They're all fixes. They're all important. As are new features, for that matter. It's pointless and wrong because it makes people think that other bugs aren't potential security fixes. What was unclear about that? Linus --
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Stephen Rothwell | Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-)) |
| Vladislav Bolkhovitin | Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
git: | |
| Arjan van de Ven | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 33/37] dccp: Initialisation framework for feature negotiation |
| Christoph Lameter | Network latency regressions from 2.6.22 to 2.6.29 |
