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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20131018183943.GB6101@thunk.org> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:39:43 -0400 From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com> Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/25] e2fsprogs patchbomb 10/2013 On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 09:48:54PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > Ted, since you've accepted patches into -pu, do you want me to send > patches against -pu as well? Or put more bluntly, what are your > thoughts about revert-and-replace of patches in -pu? Patches 2, 6, > 11, 23, and 24 have changed significantly since 9/30. The pu branch is a rewinding patch. What this means in practice is that I'll accept those patches which I believe are aready, and for the rest, I'll rewind the "dw/resize64-fuse" branch back to next, and apply the rest onto the dw/resize64-fuse branch. If I get a new set of inline patches, I'd do the same thing. Then when I update the pu branch, I rewind the pu branch to next, and then merge in all of the "xx/yyyy" feature branches, resolving conflicts along the way. This makes it obvious which branches have conflicts against each other, and it also allows me to run regression tests against the combined set of feature patch sets that aren't quite ready for next. So in other words, no, you don't need to send patches against pu, thanks! - 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