From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759294AbXGIFBR (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jul 2007 01:01:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751291AbXGIFBJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jul 2007 01:01:09 -0400 Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]:3318 "EHLO 1wt.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751775AbXGIFBI (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jul 2007 01:01:08 -0400 Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 07:00:51 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.22 released Message-ID: <20070709050050.GC943@1wt.eu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 04:52:52PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Anybody? Should I make just the shortlogs available instead (I don't save > those, but I post those for the later -rc's - usually the -rc1 and -rc2's > are too big for the mailing list, but they are still a lot smaller and > more readable than the *full* logs are)? > > Or do people really want the full logs, and don't use git? The changelogs would be more useful if they were indexed by google, but it seems they aren't (maybe too big, since 2.4 and 2.6.16 changelogs are indexed ?). At least having the shortlog available would be a minimum, provided that we try to keep the most possible descriptive subjects. This also means being more transparent about security fixes. Willy