linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] at91: defconfig for 4.3 #2

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:	Fri, 21 Aug 2015 01:58:19 +0200
From:	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
To:	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"arm@...nel.org" <arm@...nel.org>,
	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
	Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
	Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] at91: defconfig for 4.3 #2

Hi,

On 18/08/2015 at 23:49:30 +0200, Olof Johansson wrote :
> > The only thing now is that since the at91 tree is in linux-next as well
> > as the arm-soc tree, those patches appear twice there and there is a
> > conflict (easy to fix, but a pain).  The solution here is to update the
> > at91 tree to be somewhere in the arm-soc tree (probably just reset to
> > the point where the two trees match in patches but not commits).  This
> > has the downside that the at91 tree will be rebased which will affect
> > any development work that is based on that.
> >
> > If there was just one patch in common, it maybe have been better to
> > just merge the at91 tree and fix the conflict in the merge.
> 
> Yeah, this is a somewhat frustrating situation for us. I wonder if we
> should essentially tag the downstream ARM platform trees in -next such
> that if they conflict with arm-soc, you can drop them for a day if
> needed.
> 
> It's really useful for us to be able to occasionally adjust a pull
> request instead of always merging them exactly as they're presented to
> us. It saves a roundtrip to the maintainer for trivial stuff, we can
> take care of it and not have to look at it again. We often do send it
> back to the maintainers to respin, but in this particular case it
> seemed appropriate to just deal with it locally for us.
> 
> The downstream users vs rebasing git trees is of course another
> aspect. Here I'm mostly relying on subplatform maintainers to know
> well how many people actually develop on top of their trees. I think
> for most platforms it's a fairly limited use. Interesting enough, I
> can't remember last time someone told me they couldn't respin a pull
> request to fix something up due to downstream developers (not that we
> have _all_ that many of those requests).
> 

I think there is no issue to rebase at91-next apart from Nicolas being
on holiday and the fact that I don't have access to it.

> The other way to handle this would be to only apply patches directly
> and not do merges. Most other high-volume maintainers have exactly
> this workflow. We've been able to avoid reverting to that, thankfully
> (since we can delegate most of the reviews and patch applications this
> way).
> 

On an other topic but not completely unrelated, I see that you are
adding your SoB only on merge commits so basically, when the merge is a
fast forward, your SoB doesn't appear at all.
For now, I've chosen to apply PRs as patches to add my SoB, is that
something I can avoid?

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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/