| 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: Wed, 23 May 2007 08:17:24 -0400 From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu> To: coly <colyli@...il.com> Cc: linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: which tree should I generate the ext4 patch ? On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 05:00:43PM +0800, coly wrote: > > These days, I am tring to post my patch for inode reservation on > linux-ext4. But I am confused on which tree I should generate the patch. > > I worked on mm-tree. But now Thoedore creates a tree for ext4, so should > I generate the patch based on tso-tree ? The mm-tree is fed from the ext4 patch series, so there shouldn't be much difference. > Same question to e2fsprogs. I guess maybe I should generate the patch > for e2fsprogs based on e2fsprogs-TEST branch, a.k.a 1.40-WIP-0407. Isn't > it ? Yes, or if you want to use the very latest, you can use the Mercurial repository located at: http://thunk.org/hg/e2fsprogs I will be switch to git at some point in the near future, probably after the e2fsprogs 1.40 release, but for now that's the place to get the very latest. In practice, it's not hard to rebase patches, but patches against the more recent versions are definitely appreciated. So if you're not familiar with using Mercurial, please feel free to use the 1.40-WIP-0407 as the base for your patches. Regards, - Ted - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" 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