| 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: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:23:01 -0800 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk> Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, jeff@...zik.org, davem@...emloft.net, arjan@...radead.org, greg@...ah.com, sfr@...b.auug.org.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-)) On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:03:54 +0000 Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk> wrote: > (3) is effectively what akpm does with his tree - when a patch conflicts > with other changes, he throws the changes out and bangs peoples heads > together to get a new set of patches generated which work together. Actually I'll usually (much >90%) just queue another patch which fixes the fallout and will drop that once the upstreams sort things out. I'll only drop a subsystem tree in extremis. One reason for this is that I'll have a pile of other patches which are dependent upon that subsystem tree and which would need reworking. And un-reworking once the subsytem tree is undropped. And the trees which are most likely to cause conflicts tend to also be the trees upon which other patches are dependent. Mainly because those trees are larger and more spread out. -- 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