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
| ||
|
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