linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] to rebase or not to rebase on linux-next

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: <20091023205400.GA8356@elte.hu>
Date:	Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:54:00 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...il.com>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] to rebase or not to rebase on linux-next

* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> Here's the basic gist, some people believe that linux-next is used as 
> a dumping ground for their repos that get rebased all the time. They 
> use linux-next for early testing, and mostly to make sure their repo 
> will not collide with other developers repos.

I see signs of such an attitude, and i think it's somewhat harmful.

As far as using linux-next for a test-and-rebase workflow - IMO 
maintainer trees should lead with a good example and should not push 
'avoidable crap that might need rebasing' into linux-next (knowingly at 
least - there's enough unintentional damage) that they wouldnt push 
upstream to Linus to begin with.

The pure act of integration testing (the stated primary purpose of 
linux-next) is a large enough of a job in itself IMHO.

Maintainer trees pushed towards linux-next should strive to be Git 
based, append-mostly, 'nice', 'intended for upstream' and defendable 
as-is IMO, and rebasing a _maintainer tree_ should really be a rare act 
of last resort. [ Developers OTOH can (and will and perhaps should) 
rebase frequently until a feature becomes pushable. ]

Anyway - just my two cents - YMMV.

	Ingo
--
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/