linux-kernel - Re: x86/x86-64 merge for 2.6.19

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 27 Sep 2006 10:05:03 +0200
From:	"Paolo Ciarrocchi" <paolo.ciarrocchi@...il.com>
To:	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...l.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: x86/x86-64 merge for 2.6.19

On 9/26/06, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
> >
> > out of curiosity, wouldn't be better to sync with Andrew via git?
> > Why via plain patches?
> >
> > What am I missing?
>
> I think you're just missing that we've become so used to it that it's just
> easier than all the alternatives.

Umh.. good point ;)

> Also, the way we do things with Andrew actually has a few advantages over
> a straight git-to-git merge. In particular, when Andrew sends me his
> current stable quilt queue, every email is also Cc'd to the people who
> sent it to him originally or were otherwise involved.

I forgot that Andrew is CC'ing the "author" of the patch when he sends
to you the email.

> So the very act of transferring the patches from one tree to another
> sometimes produces an extra acknowledgement cycle, and we've had patches
> that got NACK'ed at that point because it was an older version of the
> patch etc.
>
> Now, I suspect this is more of an advantage with Andrew's tree than with
> most other trees (most other trees tend to have a much stricter focus),
> and perhaps equally importantly, it also wouldn't really work very well if
> _everybody_ did it, so I personally believe this is one of those
> situations where what's good for _one_ case may not actually be wonderful
> for _all_ cases.
>
> I think it's worked out pretty well, no?

Oh yes! I just did the mistake to think that the work flow of Andrew
was similar to the one used by Andy. And that's clearly a mistake.

Thanks for the clarification.

Ciao,
-- 
Paolo
http://paolo.ciarrocchi.googlepages.com
http://picasaweb.google.com/paolo.ciarrocchi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/