linux-kernel - Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-))

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:00:16 -0600
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jeff@...zik.org,
	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, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-))

On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 18:35 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, James Bottomley wrote:
> > 
> > Yes, this is exactly the feature I'm looking for.  It would allow the
> > downstream users of a rebased tree to rebase themselves correctly.
> > 
> > All the information about the rebase is in the reflog ... it can't be
> > too difficult to pass it through on a pull and allow the downstream tree
> > to do the right thing.
> 
> Guys, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Those downstream trees can have done things themselves. They *depended* on 
> the state you gave them.
> 
> You can't just say "oops, I lied, this is the state you should have used, 
> now it's _your_ mess to sort out".
> 
> OF COURSE it's what you'd like to use - it absolves you of any and all 
> actual responsibility. But dammit, that's not what anybody else wants than 
> the irresponsible person who cannot be bothered to stand up for his work!
> 
> If you're not confident enough about your work, don't push it out! It's 
> that simple. Pushing out to a public branch is a small "release".
> 
> Have the f*cking back-bone to be able to stand behind what you did!

Erm, I would like this feature as a downstream user.

I'm not asking for this to be the default or even easily available.
However, when you know you've based a downstream tree on what you know
to be a volatile base, it would be very useful information to have.

Right at the moment, I maintain a <branch> and a <branch>-base and
simply cherry pick the commits between the two to do the right thing
when I know my volatile base has changed.  It would be very helpful to
have a version of rebase that new my base had been rebased.

Basing on a tree I know to be volatile is sometimes a development
decision I make as a downstream user ... I'm just wishing the tools
could help me handle the problems better.

James


--
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/