> Er, if the holes get exploited, of *course* there's a consequence.
> And if there's no possibility that the holes would be exploited, then
> modifying the commit messages to conceal the security-related nature of
> the commits makes no sense.
i have absolutely no idea what you are talking about now. probably another of your strawmen,
but just in case: you were trying to speculate why it makes no sense to downplay/hide security
information in commit messages (mind you, a few posts below you argued the *opposite*, so much
for contradiction ;) since that would only endanger the reputation of their work. except you
forgot the little fact that such coverup took place in a secret list, hence there was no
danger of exposure, on the other hand there was a perceived advantage of not getting bad PR
about the many silently fixed security bugs. and now, out of the blue, you come with this
commit message modification and how it makes no sense for bugs that don't have a security
impact. guess what, if a bug cannot possibly be exploited then it doesn't have a
security-related nature. that's a tautology and i'm not sure what you tried to say with that.
incidentally, we weren't talking about bugs without security impact either. another strawman
> You're blatantly contradicting yourself now.
hmm, where? you're making no sense to me now, sorry. but feel free to elaborate. of course if
you just wanted a cheap cop-out, let this rest.