It's done exactly in this way... in a sense
Posted Jun 17, 2008 17:08 UTC (Tue) by khim
In reply to: The core issue
Parent article: Stable kernel 18.104.22.168 released
So, the best policy is just to describe them all and let people (including distributors) decide if they want to bump up or not.
Better for whom exactly? There are exist one potential group which will be VERY negatively affected: top-level kernel developers (and to lesser extent all other kernel developers). For them detailed list of security implications in descriptions is unneeded noise, not something important. They look and review THOUSANDS of such descriptions each and every week so OF COURSE they want to reduce this noise. If issue looks severe enough - they keep it in description.
In other words, if things are logged in such a way that even the pickiest of them are OK with it, then the ones that are less picky will be OK too.
And the pickiest users are of course kernel developers - they want to avoid clutter in various typed of reports and so demand short and concise descriptions. So they remove unimportant (for them) parts. Including detailed descriptions of possible security implications. In all cases except the most severe ones. So in fact they did what you asked them to do - but somehow you are not satisfied.
Now if you think they go overboard in some cases - you can join the system and help to prevent this. If you want totally different style of commit messages (extensive with lots and lots of details) in general - you are free to fork the project and put any kind of descriptions you want.
to post comments)