linux-kernel - Re: Please pull ACPI updates

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]

Message-ID: <487FA816.6070208@firstfloor.org>
Date:	Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:14:14 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Ray Lee <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, torvalds@...uxfoundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Please pull ACPI updates

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> The whole point of the exercise of cleaning up/rewriting the history is to make
>> the tree as bisectable as possible.
> 
> No.
> 
> "git bisect" is perfetly able to handle merges. They are _fine_.

The issue I worry about is it hitting between changes and their fixup.

e.g. for example if I find that specific change doesn't compile in some special
configuration then I amend it to fix that. Alternatively I could put in a fixup
commit  afterwards, but then if someone did bisect and the bisect hit inbetween
the change and the fixup they might end up with a tree that doesn't compile.

-Andi
--
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/