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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:39:13 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de> Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> Subject: Re: [RFC] new -stable tag variant, Git workflow question * Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de> wrote: > > By the looks of the above it's only a few commits, or is it the > > entire branch? > > I'm thinking the commit would be the merge, right Ingo? So it would > just be a single commit that has the marker in it. Correct. This is really a special case, a small variation of the commit eae0c9d -stable tagging scheme i outlined in the first mail. When i merge */urgent branches into the for-linus branch in the merge window, i cannot change the commits anymore (it would amount to a rebase), but i have the opportunity to modify the merge commit message itself. (which is typically a regular merge commit and does not carry any -stable actionable change itself.) I already annotate merge commits today - for example: | commit 43315956509ca6913764861ac7dec128b91eb1ec | Merge: 9bf4e7f 6beba7a | Author: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> | Date: Fri Oct 23 08:23:20 2009 +0200 | | Merge branch 'perf/core' into perf/probes | | Conflicts: | tools/perf/Makefile | | Merge reason: | | - fix the conflict | - pick up the pr_*() infrastructure to queue up dependent patch | | Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Note how i already put a SOB line into the merge commit - i treat every merge as something that 'had to be done' so they are never arbitrary and always carry real information. So my idea was to potentially use the extended -stable notification scheme in certain merge commits too. Here's a mockup merge commit log: Merge branch 'sched/urgent' into sched/core Conflicts: tools/perf/Makefile Merge reason: - resolve the conflict - queue up urgent fixes for the next merge window Cc: <stable@...nel.org> # .32.x: a1f84a3: sched: Check for an idle shared cache Cc: <stable@...nel.org> # .32.x: 1b9508f: sched: Rate-limit newidle Cc: <stable@...nel.org> # .32.x: fd21073: sched: Fix affinity logic Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Note that the merge commit itself carries no action for -stable: there's no "Cc: <stable@...nel.org>" line - only 'pointer' lines in the form of: Cc: <stable@...nel.org> # .32.x: sha1: title But ... if you or Linus dislikes this direction of tagging for some reason i can still do the manual approach as well. It seemed useful to me though and it would be a natural portion of my workflow. 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists