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
 
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 22:29:03 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Junio C Hamano <gitster@...ox.com>
Cc:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
	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


* Junio C Hamano <gitster@...ox.com> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> 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?

There's no Git flow towards -stable. It's either forwarded emails, or 
tags in the upstream kernel. Also, _only_ commits that were pulled by 
Linus are eligible for -stable.

So the pull requests all first go to Linus - then can any commit flow to 
-stable.

But even if it was possible to send pull requests to Greg, marking 
commits as -stable candidates is more natural in the commit log itself.

That informs people ('hey, that's a dangerous patch, dont mark it for 
-stable!!' or 'hey, why isnt this commit tagged to stable??'), and it 
also ensures it that only commits from Linus's tree flow towards 
-stable.

	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