linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Keyrings patches

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:	Wed, 18 Sep 2013 12:53:06 +0100
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	dhowells@...hat.com, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	simo@...hat.com, zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, keyrings@...ux-nfs.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Keyrings patches

Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Is there some reason that those fixups cannot be done in a merge commit?
> i.e. are they more than simple text updates?

That's somewhat up to James.  *He* would be the person doing the merge, not
me.  I'm changing the lines in my patches also.

> /me thinks that most rebases people do can be better done (and
> documented) as merges.

That depends on how you define "better".  Better for what?  I think it's
better to absorb the changes into my patch series.  StGIT is very good for
handling this, since my patches are currently maintained as an StGIT set.
That way, there ends up one fewer commit in the history, assuming no other
collisions with what James merges.

David
--
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/