[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091110203913.GA18509@elte.hu>
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