Date:	Fri, 03 Dec 2010 10:37:30 -0500
From:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>
Cc:	ext-jarkko.2.sakkinen@...ia.com, jmorris@...ei.org,
	casey@...aufler-ca.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: VS: [PATCH] Smack: label for task objects (retry 2)

On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 09:33 -0500, Eric Paris wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:27 AM,  <ext-jarkko.2.sakkinen@...ia.com> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I don't like to whine about unnecessary things but it would really nice to get into the author field :) The patch that I sent to list did have merge issues. I  don't know what messed it.
> >
> > Casey, I propose we take some steps back and fix the workflow so next time things will go smoother. I propose that I create my own tree from your tree and put patch there and you can then cherry pick or merge my patch to his tree.  Then James can pick the patch from your tree.
> >
> > BR, Jarkko
> 
> You can't apply Sign-off's on a git-pull/git-merge.  I'm not sure if
> James cares that he didn't sign the patch off either.  That doesn't
> mean one can't do it, it just means it isn't an easy workflow.
> 
> If git tree owners use git am to apply mboxes (rather than patch + git
> commit) the author/time/date type stuff will be correct.  The fact
> that the original author forgot the signed-off is a problem unrelated
> to git usage.
> 
> Now how could security set up git trees?  That is the question.
> 
> 1) 'child' trees (I see child tree as the SELinux or SMACK tree)
> should NEVER be based on something newer than security-testing.
> Personally I don't think security-testing should merge Linus' except
> maybe 2 times per upstream kernel cycle.  At release and then about
> -rc4 or 5.  If we are doing things right security-testing shouldn't
> need to merge ever, but I digress.  Linus would MUCH rather deal with
> conflicts himself than have development trees merge his work quickly
> or regularly.  That's a problem for James to deal with I guess.  We as
> child tree owners need to just base off of James.
> 
> 2) If #1 is true and you want to get Sign-off's in your parent tree
> you can set up the child trees as a remote.  Then you can use:
> 
> git format-patch -k --stdout HEAD..remotes/[child]/[branch] | git am
> -3 -k --whitespace=fix -s
> 
> Where you obviously set child/branch appropriately.  This will apply
> the patches found in the child tree but not in the parent tree (which
> is the reason the child must be behind) one at a time and will add
> your Signed-off.

Nice. Am thinking you might have automated the process a bit too much,
by automatically adding the tree maintainer's Signed-off. 

I've been using, obviously not in the scenario you're describing, 'git
format-patch' to a directory and then 'git quiltimport --patches /dir'
to verify the patches before posting using 'git send-email'. (Minor
detail is having to create the patch series in the directory before
doing 'git quiltimport', but this is easy enough to do.) 

By first writing the patches to a directory, the tree maintainer could
add his Signed-off, before using 'git quiltimport' to apply the patches.
Haven't tried, but probably could do the equivalent using 'git am'.

Mimi

> The problem with this method is that it makes it harder to check if
> the pull request was done properly.  A merge gives a unified diff that
> can be compared to a properly formated (git request-pull) pull request
> to make it easy for the puller to verify he pulled what he was ask to
> pull.  So the parent tree has to do that unified diff themselves and
> double check.
> 
> Our tree is so simple I don't really understand why we need all this,
> but if we need it, lets figure out what works best for everyone!
> 
> -Eric



--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists