| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:42:09 -0500 From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org> To: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com> Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [GIT] Networking On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 09:17:54PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 13:01 -0800, David Miller wrote: > > From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org> > > Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:48:23 -0500 > > > > > As with the above, it'd make the history a little more self-documenting. > > > > Once there is even one single commit after the buggy one, this is > > simply impossible since the hashes of subsequent commits depend upon > > the precise contents of the original one. > > I think Bruce is suggesting that the fix is committed on a branch from > the broken commit, then merged into whatever branches need it. I'm not > sure how much that helps, though. The merge could then involve forward- > porting (as opposed to the current situation where fixes are cherry- > picked and possibly back-ported). Yeah, there could be merge conflicts. But assume you only did this in cases where the merge was trivial. Would it be worth it, or would people be annoyed by the additional branching? --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists