linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: unneeded merge in the security 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 12 Mar 2013 16:18:23 +1100
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Linus <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: unneeded merge in the security tree

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 00:16:41 -0400 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 03:10:53PM +1100, James Morris wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Mar 2013, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > The top commit in the security tree today is a merge of v3.9-rc2.  This
> > > is a completely unnecessary merge as the tree before the merge was a
> > > subset of v3.9-rc1 and so if the merge had been done using anything but
> > > the tag, it would have just been a fast forward.  I know that this is now
> > > deliberate behaviour on git's behalf, but isn't there some way we can
> > > make this easier on maintainers who are just really just trying to pick a
> > > new starting point for their trees after a release?  (at least I assume
> > > that is what James was trying to do)
> > 
> > Yes, and I was merging to a tag as required by Linus.
> 
> Why not just force the head of the security tree to be v3.9-rc2?  Then
> you don't end up creating a completely unnecessary merge commit, and
> users who were at the previous head of the security tree will
> experience a fast forward when they pull your new head.

Well, you used to be able to merge a tag and it would just fast forward
if possible.  That was changed (for good reason), but now gives us this
outcome.   Also, "git merge --ff" does not override that behaviour, but
"git merge --ff-only" does.  Also, of course, if (say) origin/master had
been v3.9-rc2, then "git merge origin/master" would have also just done a
fast forward.

I wonder if "git merge v3.9-rc2^{}" should work (git says "fatal: v3.9-rc2{}
 - not something we can merge").

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped