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: <11272.1197056185@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists