linux-kernel - Re: git guidance

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:36:25 -0500
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
Cc:	Jakub Narebski <jnareb@...il.com>, Andreas Ericsson <ae@....se>,
	Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@....de>,
	Phillip Susi <psusi@....rr.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jing Xue <jingxue@...izenstudio.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, git@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: git guidance

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 22:04:48 +0300, Al Boldi said:

> Because WORKFLOW C is transparent, it won't affect other workflows.  So you 
> could still use your normal WORKFLOW B in addition to WORKFLOW C, gaining an 
> additional level of version control detail at no extra cost other than the 
> git-engine scratch repository overhead.
> 
> BTW, is git efficient enough to handle WORKFLOW C?

Imagine the number of commits a 'make clean; make' will do in a kernel tree, as
it commits all those .o files... :)


Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped