linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the i2c tree with the arm-current tree

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20090506092559.2d9e53cb@hyperion.delvare>
Date:	Wed, 6 May 2009 09:25:59 +0200
From:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To:	Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, Nicolas Pitre <nico@....org>,
	Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the i2c tree with the arm-current 
 tree

Hi Russell,

On Wed, 6 May 2009 08:15:48 +0100, Russell King wrote:
> Since defconfig updates are always going to create lots of noise, and
> the files are normally out of date, the *only* sensible way to handle
> updates is to have one tree dealing with them per architecture.
> 
> Spreading them across multiple trees and then expecting merges to sort
> out the resulting mess is unreasonable; they just change far too much
> when updates happen.  Moreover, defconfig updates should be in their
> own separate commit and not combined with other changes.

I fail to see how you can handle configuration option renames
gracefully with your proposed model.

-- 
Jean Delvare
--
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/