linux-kernel - Re: [GIT pull] x86 fixes for 2.6.26

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

Date:	Sat, 17 May 2008 13:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, tglx@...utronix.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [GIT pull] x86 fixes for 2.6.26

On Sat, 17 May 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> We've solved it by still doing the merges (we _need_ the information 
> about potential upcoming merge trouble), but we dont commit them to the 
> topic branches - we throw them away.

And that is *absolutely* the right thing to do.

Poeple need to test the different topic branches together some way anyway, 
regardless of upcoming merge trouble, so yes, when you have more than one 
branch, you inevitably need to have a "test branch" that ties them all 
together for testing the end result (and that test branch generally would 
be a throw-away one, like linux-next. In fact, it could *be* linux-next, 
but there's good reason for you to test your own branches together rather 
than waiting for an external entity to notice that your branches don't 
work together).

So yes, sounds good.

			Linus
--
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/