linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PATCH] split up feature-removal-schedule.txt

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:	Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:38:20 -0800
From:	Junio C Hamano <junio@...ox.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] split up feature-removal-schedule.txt

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:

> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> 
>> So in that sense, I think both MAINTAINERS and the deprecation schedule 
>> are totally uninteresting. Yes, they have merge conflicts. But those merge 
>> conflicts are really really easy to handle.
>
> That, btw, includes "automatic merges" for something like a Linux-next 
> tree. It's easy to just make something that says: if the merge fails, try 
> to fix up these xyz files by just committing them with merge error markers 
> and all".
>
> That's fine for testing, exactly because it has no coding impact (and then 
> when a _real_ merge happens, you have a human that actually resolves it).
> ...
> Git if nothing if not scriptable, and things like this are *trivial*.

You can also use "union" low-level merge driver for such files
via gitattributes(5).
--
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/