On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 09:51:30AM +0100, Marius Bakke wrote: > Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> writes: > > The CVE bug fixes are not split into discrete patches, so it doesn't > > work to make patches for each CVE ID, like we normally do. > > > > Is this approach (concatenating the patches) okay? > > I prefer having them separately, so the upstream commit can be clearly > referenced in the patch header; and they can be reviewed and modified > independently. > > In this instance it's okay, since I just checked out the 1.10 branch and > concatenated the four commits and ended up with the same patch :-) > > That's not to say it should not be allowed. I think this approach is > fine for long patch series, but at only four patches it's not the best > precedent.
I wondered how to split the patches up here. I don't know how to name the first two patches, since the CVE bug fixes are spread between them. I'll break the 3 and 4th patch off into their own files.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
