linux-kernel - Re: Rebased for_next branch in my linux-fs git 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Fri, 5 Jul 2013 10:04:37 +1000
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Rebased for_next branch in my linux-fs git tree

Hi Jan,

On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 19:43:04 +0200 Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
>
>   I'm just writing this to let you know that I had to rebase for_next
                                                 ^^^
wrong choice of work, you "chose" to rebase.  :-)

> branch in my linux-fs git tree because I've messed up my tree and for_linus
> & for_next branches contained the same patches but with different commit
> IDs (fast track fixes). When I pulled for_next into for_linus branch,
> the changelog had commit logs for those patches twice which was rather
> confusing. The only solution I found was to rebase for_next on top of
> for_linus to get rid of the duplicate patches. If there's a cleaner
> solution of the situation, I'm happy to learn it for future...

Just leave it.  Linus and I know how to cope with those (maybe explain to
Linus what happened).  In the future, if you put fixes in your for_linus
branch and *need* those fixes in your for_next branch, then merge your
for_linus branch into your for_next branch instead of cherry-picking the
patches.

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

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped