linux-kernel - Re: Linux 3.2-rc1

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:	Tue, 8 Nov 2011 18:00:32 -0500
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.2-rc1

On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 06:10:02PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So it's been two weeks since 3.1, and you know how it works by now.
> 
> I have to say, this wasn't my favorite merge window ever. I really
> wanted to take only things that had been in -next, but verifying it
> was fairly painful, since a lot of the trees had been rebased, and the
> ones that hadn't been rebased often had some extra patches that still
> showed up when I did my "git log linux-next..FETCH_HEAD" thing.
> 
> On the whole, most of it was all good, and I didn't really end up
> complaining to people. I'm pretty sure that there were trees I
> shouldn't have let through, but the majority really had been in -next.
> 
> The other point of irritation was that there really was a lot of stuff
> that came in yesterday and basically treated the merge window as some
> kind of high-tech limbo dance. If it hadn't been for a few trees I
> wanted to pull, I had actually planned to do the -rc1 release Sunday
> afternoon instead, just to cut those annoying last-minute pull
> requests off.
> 
> And some trees didn't get pulled. You know who you are, and you can
> try to appeal to my softer side if you think it was unfair. Of course,
> if you *do* find my softer side, please tell my wife and kids too,
> they'll be thrilled.

/me searches for the softer side.

> 
> But the main reason some trees didn't get pulled was that they
> generated long flame-wars, and I just felt like I really didn't need
> the aggravation this time around, especially as I knew I had plenty
> other trees to pull.

Is there a reason that the ktest tree didn't get pulled? Is it because
it is not in next (nor has it ever been). I could arrange to put it
there, but as it is a simple tool in the tools directory I didn't think
it required the next processing. But I could update that if so desired.

There hasn't been any flame wars on ktest either, so that could not be
it. Maybe I could start a flame war with myself to get it more
attention.


Anyway, the pull request is here, hopefully that softside exists.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/28/97

Thanks!

-- Steve

--
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/