From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPC_SET_PERM cleanup
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 11:05:38 -0400
Message-ID: <200605091105.38233.sgrubb@redhat.com>
References: <445BB351.2040303@hp.com>
	<d9c105ea0605081129v212f6486t305467dfc2c7d162@mail.gmail.com>
	<20060509145946.GB31457@w-m-p.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20060509145946.GB31457@w-m-p.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit>,
	<mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-audit>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-audit@redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit>,
	<mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com
Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com
To: linux-audit@redhat.com
List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com

On Tuesday 09 May 2006 10:59, Klaus Weidner wrote:
> I think having a separate record type would be an alternative to the
> "new_" (or "new ") prefix. If the record types are distinct, it would be
> possible to use the same field names for current and requested object
> properties.

I'd rather see the word "new" separated by a space so that searching is 
better/easier.

-Steve