linux-kernel - Re: Regulator updates for 3.3

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

Message-ID: <CA+55aFxXb7wqfrpozS6iH0k25y-+Uy8_Tavv59JXMhaWrjXLaw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:18:44 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	Liam Girdwood <lrg@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Regulator updates for 3.3

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Mark Brown
<broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
>
> Hrm, OK.  These merges are all merges up of bug fixes for -rc from my
> own tree into the development code which I tend to do constantly to make
> it easier to work directly on the development branch.  What's the best
> practice here - push things to you a bit more aggressively and wait
> until you've tagged a -rc and then merge that back up into the
> development branch?

No. Just don't do the merges. If your development tree isn't stable on
its own, then there is something seriously wrong in what you do.

Doing *one* or two merges during the cycle might be ok just to not get
too far out, but you have way way WAY too many of them.

Just do this:

    gitk d52739c62e00..269d430131b6

to see what I actually got, and then look at what you did on Nov 27,
for example. You did *two* of the merges within hours of each other!
And then you had two more the very next day, without even having any
actual development in between! That's just crazy. The fact that you
then say that you have some kind of *excuse* for that craziness is
just sad.

Stop doing that. It's stupid. It just makes it harder for everybody to
see what you are doing. You didn't even do any *development* in that
tree, you just did a few merges in a row because *some other tree* had
done development! Followed up by a three-way merge where one of the
points was *again* that useless one. Can't you see how crazy that is?

And the "two consecutive merges with no development in between" is
just the extreme case of that. It's wrong in general, that extra crazy
case is just the extreme example of what kind of crap happens when you
think that you should track another unrelated branch in your
"for-next" branch.

You shouldn't do that. It's your development branch. You shouldn't
track the "for-linus" branch in it.

                          Linus
--
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/