do you know how the -stable tree works? the rule is that if a bug is present in the Linus
tree, it must be fixed there *before* it goes into -stable. so if there's a problem with
commit messages in -stable it's because there is a problem with them in the Linus tree already
(incidentally, Brad's links pointed to the Linus tree as well, not that of -stable). so one
more time: the problem is the policy held at the very top of linux development, it is not
about accidentally mislabeled bugs but a seemingly conscious strategy. let me give you another
and you tell me if it was just too hard to call it what it is (buffer overflow as it was also
clearly spelled out in the linked bugzilla entry) or someone tried really hard to evade
grepping the changelogs.
and frankly, i hope you didn't seriously suggest that it has to take an exploit to convince
someone that downplaying of commit messages is not acceptable.