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: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:01:30 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> Cc: Linus <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>, Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>, Sage Weil <sage@...dream.net>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, J??rn Engel <joern@...fs.org> Subject: Re: linux-next: current pending merge fix patches * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote: > Hi Ingo, > > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 09:10:21 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote: > > > > > This could also be taken as a reminder to the respective maintiners that > > > they may want to do a merge of your tree before asking you to pull theirs. > > > > I dont think that's generally correct for trivial conflicts: it's better if > > Linus does the merge of a tree that is based in some stable tree. > > In general I agree. I have singled out these conflict resolutions because > they involve either files not obvious from the conflicts (newly introduced > or chunks of code moved between files), or chunks of code that are > introduced in one tree but need to be modified after the otheris merged. So > in that sense they are a heads up to Linus because they are only found after > you do the merge and then get a build failure (if you do the right builds). > > So they can be resolved by Linus after he merges the second tree or by the > original maintainer of one of the trees merging/cherrypicking (part of) the > other tree or waiting for Linus to merge the other tree and then do a merge > with Linus' tree. Conflict reminders are certainly useful - even for trivial commits. My comments mostly related to the part of your suggestion that subsystem maintainers may merge in Linus's tree before they send their pull request to Linus - which i dont agree with in the general case, for the aforementioned reasons. Thanks, 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