On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 at 08:19, Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Am 23.03.22 um 09:10 schrieb Paul Menzel: > > Sorry, I disagree. The motivation needs to be part of the commit > > message. For example see recent discussion on the LWN article > > *Donenfeld: Random number generator enhancements for Linux 5.17 and > > 5.18* [1]. > > > > How much the commit message should be extended, I do not know, but the > > current state is insufficient (too terse). > > Well the key point is it's not about you to judge that. > > If you want to complain about the commit message then come to me with > that and don't request information which isn't supposed to be publicly > available. > > So to make it clear: The information is intentionally hold back and not > made public. In that case, the code isn't suitable to be merged into upstream trees; it can be resubmitted when it can be explained. Cheers, Daniel
