linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree

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: <20121128105758.1f6c6bba9cef4c780e4b3602@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:	Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:57:58 +1100
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree

On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:30:31 -0800 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > If that is what happened, it may be worth always using the --no-ff flag
> > to git merge/pull to make sure that the top commit on your tree always
> > has you as the committer (and maybe SOB).
> >
> > Linus, does that make sense in general for maintainers?
> 
> No. That just hides the real problem - back-merges of random points in history.
> 
> Don't do them, people. EVER.

I was also thinking about the case where a developer does work based on
the maintainer's published tree and then the maintainer pulls that work
sometime later (when his published tree has not been updated in the mean
time).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped