linux-kernel - Re: [GIT] kbuild changes for 2.6.35

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4C0565AC.8020205@suse.cz>
Date:	Tue, 01 Jun 2010 21:55:24 +0200
From:	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
	a.beregalov@...il.com, andi@...stfloor.org, dzickus@...hat.com,
	fejes@...o.name, g.liakhovetski@....de, gthelen@...gle.com,
	hschauhan@...ltrace.org, hui.zhu@...driver.com,
	jan3sobi3ski@...il.com, jay@...dhive.com,
	jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com, jkacur@...hat.com,
	joe@...ches.com, kirr@....spb.ru, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
	nir.tzachar@...il.com, rabin@....in, rientjes@...gle.com,
	roland@...hat.com, saalwaechter@...il.com, shemminger@...tta.com,
	tabbott@...lice.com, u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de,
	vbendeb@...gle.com, vda.linux@...glemail.com, wuzhangjin@...il.com,
	xt28@....de
Subject: Re: [GIT] kbuild changes for 2.6.35

On 1.6.2010 17:32, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> No, the commits themselves are likely fine, although for the future it 
> really would be good to make things like that more descriptive. I just 
> want people to try to argue for _why_ I should do a pull, and _what_ I'm 
> getting in their "please pull" thing.
> 
> It's not always necessary, and some people do it better than others. For 
> an example of a really good pull request, look at the ones David Miller 
> sends me for networking - they explain what's going on in the pull, so 
> it's always easy to pull them because just the request makes me feel like 
> David is really on top of things, and lets me have some 30'000 ft overview 
> of what's going on.

OK, I'll try to do better job next time. I'm also going to use different
branches for kbuild / kconfig / trivial stuff like .gitignore / etc from
now on, so that you don't get a all-or-nothing pull request in the next
merge window (something that Sam suggested).


> At the same time, in many cases I obviously pull _without_ any kind of 
> real explanation - and that tends to be especially true with maintainers 
> that I've worked with for a long time, or areas that are so specialized 
> that they are almost self-explanatory (let's be honest: when a filesystem 
> maintainer asks me to pull their special filesystem, I'm perfectly happy 
> with the overview of "30 changesets to XFS", and there's no need for much 
> explanation, although a rough overview of what's been going on is always 
> good to see).
> 
> So the reason I ask for explanations for kbuild is that not only have we 
> had different maintainers, it's an area that affects a lot of different 
> things and has historically had issues with odd architectures or old 
> binutils tools etc.

I see. Thanks a lot for pulling the changes now.

Michal
--
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/