Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for December 5, 2013
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
Kernel.org's road to recovery
Posted Oct 11, 2011 1:10 UTC (Tue) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)
He asked not to indulge in a theater of flagging commits with useless (and probably misleading) comments. That is a very far cry from dishonesty.
The contention that such commit messages will make Linux look bad is nonsense, if somebody wants to get data on security problems there are lots of other sources, very much more accurate than self-selected comments on patches.
Posted Oct 11, 2011 7:36 UTC (Tue) by PaXTeam (subscriber, #24616)
no, he didn't *ask* anything. he *declared* that he does *not* want to see greppable words that'd identify a commit as fixing a security bug. no ifs and buts there. in less euphemistic words it's also called a coverup. second, if identifying security fixes was 'useless (and probably misleading)' then 1. why does he still let through such commits sometimes, 2. why does the rest world do this? something doesn't add up here if you theory holds ;).
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds