Actually, ("talking" to myself?), parsing this file a bit more,
I find many (~134) that are missing "Sign-offs".
I take it that "Sign-off"s are also "optional" on commits
and represent that the author specified under the "commit"
tag did not need a "Sign-off"?
Just trying to see if I can parse large changelogs into groups
that might be easier digest and summarize...
-linda
Linda Walsh wrote:
I was examining and checking the Changelog for 2.6.15 and noticed
one commit out of the 4959 that was problematic (near line 21375):
commit 7b7abfe3dd81d659a0889f88965168f7eef8c5c6
Author: Steve French <[email protected]>
Date: Wed Nov 9 15:21:09 2005 -0800
--- end of entry ---
This change has no description and no one listed as signing it off.
Was there a 1-line description for this commit and was this
commit sign off by anyone?
Do either, the missing "signoff", or "description", constitute the
possibility that the "commit" went in "unapproved" & "unaudited"?
On a less worrisome note, 62 of the 4958 commits had no "details"
beyond (after) the 1-line description. Is it safe to say that further
"details" after the 1-line description are optional?
This is the first Changelog I've examined in this detail, so I can't
say if this is a first or one-time problem.
Thanks,
-linda
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
