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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:11:17 -0800
From:	Junio C Hamano <>
To:	Ingo Molnar <>
Cc:	Greg KH <>,
	Stefan Richter <>,
	James Bottomley <>,
	Linus Torvalds <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Chris Wright <>,, Thomas Gleixner <>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>
Subject: Re: [RFC] new -stable tag variant, Git workflow question

Ingo Molnar <> writes:

> 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.

I am just a bystander, but if it were truly in-upstream-git way, wouldn't
you be forking a branch from the tagged target release (the latest of
2.6.32.X), and queuing only the changes meant for -stable to it, and
giving the name of the branch to git people and sending out patches from
that branch for e-mailed review and application?

There won't be any special tagging required, only a dedicated branch.

Or am I missing something?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists