| 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: <aday7gxso90.fsf@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:08:43 -0700 From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com> To: "Mikael Starvik" <mikael.starvik@...s.com> Cc: "'Adrian Bunk'" <bunk@...sta.de>, "dev-etrax" <dev-etrax@...s.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: cris port lacks a merge? > The problem is that every time I try the following happens: > > 1. I download the bleeding edge latest stuff that you can get > 2. I prepare and submit patches > 3. I get replies with comments on my patches > 4. I fix the patches. > 5. I get told that the patches are against a too old version > 6. Repeat from 1. One way to reduce your backlog might be to choose a small subset of the most urgent out of all your pending patches -- say, the minimum required to get cris working if it doesn't build/work in the latest kernel, or the most urgent bug fixes if it does still work -- and then update just that subset. By reducing the number of patches, you can reduce the amount of time in step 4 and reduce the chance of entering step 5. Then, once that batch is merged, move on to the next most urgent set of patches, etc. Also, creating a git tree might make the job of rebasing patches easier, and also reduces the friction in getting Linus to merge your patches. - R. - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists