linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] new -stable tag variant, Git workflow question

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: <20091110204537.GB18509@elte.hu>
Date:	Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:45:37 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Cc:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
	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:

> > More importantly, isn't this against the character of the -stable 
> > kernel branches as _safe and simple_ hotfix branches?
> > 
> > If a fix has a number of prerequisites which ar not -stable fixes 
> > themselves, then it is more than a hint that this fix is not really 
> > well suited for -stable.
> 
> Not true, we have been doing this kind of thing for quite some time 
> now. Sometimes it's just a simple "this patch cleans up the code, and 
> the second one fixes it in an obvious manner" type thing.  It is 
> easier for me and everyone else for us to apply 2 commits to the 
> -stable tree, instead of rewriting the second patch that actually does 
> the fix and hope I got it all correct in doing so.
> 
> It's also easier to review stuff, which is the most important thing.

Yeah. This new tagging scheme doesnt really allow anything 'new' per se 
- it just helps the existing practice some more. All these commits were 
-stable candidates anyway, in exactly the same order - the only 
difference the new tagging scheme adds here is a more organized, 
in-upsream-Git way of communicating it to you.

This is also easier and less error prone for me than using email: i can 
do all the -stable tagging when i create a commit - or if i see that a 
commit has prereqs and those should be in -stable too. In those 
situations i check out the last stable kernel version, and cherry-pick 
the prereqs and the target commit, to see that it cherry-picks without 
conflicts.

But i cannot send you an email to stable@...nel.org just yet: as i 
havent fully tested the last commit yet, and have not pushed it out yet. 
The commit ID is not stable yet.

So without the in-commit tagging, i'd have to remember to send you an 
email in an hour (or in a day - whenever testing is done) - and that is 
error prone and easy to forget. The prereqs might be lost, etc. It's 
better to do this all in one well-focused moment of time, gather the 
information and mention it in the changelog.

	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/