linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the l2-mtd tree with the mtd tree

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, 25 Jul 2012 16:39:33 +0100
From:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:	Gerlando Falauto <gerlando.falauto@...mile.com>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>,
	"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the l2-mtd tree with the mtd tree

On Wed, 2012-07-25 at 17:36 +0200, Gerlando Falauto wrote:
> 
> thanks for your explanation.
> So, is it correct to say that any patch contained within l2-mtd (but 
> *NOT* within linux-mtd) will eventually be killed? (Or rather, 
> *replaced* by the version eventually applied to linux-mtd)?

Usually, yes. It'll either get applied in some form or other to the
linux-mtd tree, or on the infrequent occasions that Artem merges
something that I object to, the author will get an email from me
explaining *why* it wasn't applied.

Sometimes I *do* just pull everything from Artem's tree, but usually I
don't.

> In other words, when you say "Artem updates his tree", it is
> technically a rebase (so his version of a patch actually looks as if
> never existed), right? 

Yes.

-- 
dwmw2

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (6171 bytes)