On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, pageexec@freemail.hu wrote:Oh, so now you're suddenly fine with not doing "full disclosure"? Just a few emails ago you berated me for not doing full disclosure, but now you're saying it is fine? Can you now admit that it's a gray line, and that we just have very different opinions of where the line is drawn? I literally draw the line at anything that is simply greppable for. If it's not a very public security issue already, I don't want a simple "git log + grep" to help find it. That said, I don't _plan_ messages or obfuscate them, so "overflow" might well be part of the message just because it simply describes the fix. So I'm not claiming that the messages can never help somebody pinpoint interesting commits to look at, I'm just also not at all interested in doing so reliably. And I believe you now at least understand the difference. I draw the line between 0 and 1, where 0 is "explain the fix" - which is something that any - and every - commit message should do. Linus --
| Scott Preece | Re: Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board Elections |
| Luis R. Rodriguez | Re: [Announce] Linux-tiny project revival |
| Andrew Morton | 2.6.23-rc1-mm2 |
| Dave Hansen | [PATCH 02/24] rearrange may_open() to be r/o friendly |
git: | |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| David Miller | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
