Re: [PATCH 0/1] Gst-plugins-good security update

[Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 995 bytes --]

On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 09:51:30AM +0100, Marius Bakke wrote:
> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:
> > The CVE bug fixes are not split into discrete patches, so it doesn't
> > work to make patches for each CVE ID, like we normally do.
> >
> > Is this approach (concatenating the patches) okay?
> 
> I prefer having them separately, so the upstream commit can be clearly
> referenced in the patch header; and they can be reviewed and modified
> independently.
> 
> In this instance it's okay, since I just checked out the 1.10 branch and
> concatenated the four commits and ended up with the same patch :-)
> 
> That's not to say it should not be allowed. I think this approach is
> fine for long patch series, but at only four patches it's not the best
> precedent.

I wondered how to split the patches up here. I don't know how to name
the first two patches, since the CVE bug fixes are spread between them.

I'll break the 3 and 4th patch off into their own files.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]