On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 2:31 AM Dan Carpenter wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 12:54:30AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2020-12-09 at 10:58 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:01:49PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2020-12-08 at 16:34 -0800, Kees Cook w
On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 12:54:30AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-12-09 at 10:58 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:01:49PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2020-12-08 at 16:34 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > >
> > > > If not "Adjusted-by", what about "Tweaked-
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 9:45 AM Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 12/9/20 8:58 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:01:49PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2020-12-08 at 16:34 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> >>
> >> > If not "Adjusted-by", what about "Tweaked-by", "Helped-by",
> >> >
On Wed, 2020-12-09 at 10:58 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:01:49PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-12-08 at 16:34 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> >
> > > If not "Adjusted-by", what about "Tweaked-by", "Helped-by",
> > > "Corrected-by"?
> >
> > Improved-by: / Enhance
On 12/9/20 8:58 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:01:49PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Tue, 2020-12-08 at 16:34 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> > If not "Adjusted-by", what about "Tweaked-by", "Helped-by",
>> > "Corrected-by"?
>>
>> Improved-by: / Enhanced-by: / Revisions-by:
On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:01:49PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-12-08 at 16:34 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> > If not "Adjusted-by", what about "Tweaked-by", "Helped-by",
> > "Corrected-by"?
>
> Improved-by: / Enhanced-by: / Revisions-by:
>
I don't think we should give any credit for
On Tue, 2020-12-08 at 16:34 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> If not "Adjusted-by", what about "Tweaked-by", "Helped-by",
> "Corrected-by"?
Improved-by: / Enhanced-by: / Revisions-by:
Or simply don't use anything but a link to the conversion thread
like Konstantin suggested.
I still want to know what
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 07:30:44PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 12:40:47PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 10:36:56AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 10:35 AM Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 08:02:27P
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 12:43:52AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> there was a bit of debate on Twitter about this, so I thought I would bring it
> here. Imagine a scenario where patch sits as a commit in -next and there's a
> bug
> report or fix, possibly by a bot or with some static analysis.
On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 14:17 -0500, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 08:55:54AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Perhaps automate a mechanism to capture that information as
> > git notes for the patches when applied.
>
> Git notes have a limited usefulness for this -- they are ind
On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 13:52 -0500, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> It's not so much "clean history" that's the desire. It's "don't leave
> landmines for git bisect".
... top posting?
Well functional git bisect and show the evolution of the patch aren't
mutually exclusive. Plus our current clean history
On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 14:17 -0500, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 08:55:54AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Perhaps automate a mechanism to capture that information as
> > git notes for the patches when applied.
>
> Git notes have a limited usefulness for this -- they are ind
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 08:55:54AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> Perhaps automate a mechanism to capture that information as
> git notes for the patches when applied.
Git notes have a limited usefulness for this -- they are indeed part of
the repository, but they aren't replicated unless someone do
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 07:30:44PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 12:40:47PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 10:36:56AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 10:35 AM Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 08:02:27P
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 12:40:47PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 10:36:56AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 10:35 AM Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 08:02:27PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 3:44
On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 05:58 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> So there are two embedded questions here: firstly, should we be as
> wedded to clean history as we are, because showing the evolution would
> simply solve this? Secondly, if we are agreed on clean history, how
> can we make engagement via
On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 00:43 +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there was a bit of debate on Twitter about this, so I thought I would
> bring it here. Imagine a scenario where patch sits as a commit in
> -next and there's a bug report or fix, possibly by a bot or with some
> static analysis. T
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> I'd like a "Fixes-from: Name email" tag for when someone spots a bug in
> a patch.
>
> I think we should not give credit for style complaints, because those
> are their own reward and we already have enough bike shedding.
I agree with Dan, although I'
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 10:36:56AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 10:35 AM Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 08:02:27PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 3:44 PM Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > > there was a bit of debate on Twitter a
I'd like a "Fixes-from: Name email" tag for when someone spots a bug in
a patch.
I think we should not give credit for style complaints, because those
are their own reward and we already have enough bike shedding.
regards,
dan carpenter
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 10:35 AM Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 08:02:27PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 3:44 PM Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > there was a bit of debate on Twitter about this, so I thought I would
> > > bring it
> > > here. Imagine a scenar
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 08:02:27PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 3:44 PM Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > there was a bit of debate on Twitter about this, so I thought I would bring
> > it
> > here. Imagine a scenario where patch sits as a commit in -next and there
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 3:44 PM Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> there was a bit of debate on Twitter about this, so I thought I would bring it
> here. Imagine a scenario where patch sits as a commit in -next and there's a
> bug
> report or fix, possibly by a bot or with some static analysis. Th
Hi,
there was a bit of debate on Twitter about this, so I thought I would bring it
here. Imagine a scenario where patch sits as a commit in -next and there's a bug
report or fix, possibly by a bot or with some static analysis. The maintainer
decides to fold it into the original patch, which makes
24 matches
Mail list logo
