linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL 0/3] arm-soc: late changes for 3.9

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+55aFx2Cuuq2YW6mexxZ88TNm=FLYUYPzeLqN=y46oYxZJ3wQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 28 Feb 2013 20:18:34 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Chris Ball <cjb@...top.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	ARM SoC <arm@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL 0/3] arm-soc: late changes for 3.9

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net> wrote:
>
> Final two pull requests are for the same code. As Arnd describes in the
> tags, they are for a set of mvebu patches that depend on contents in
> the MMC tree. We had pulled in part of the MMC branch as a dependency,
> but unfortunately Chris Ball rebased it.

Has Chris Ball been told what an incredible pain this kind of crap is,
and that there's a damn good reason why WE DO NOT REBASE PUBLIC TREES
THAT OTHERS MAY BE BASING THEIR DEVELOPMENT ON!

Chris, can you hear me shouting? Don't do that.

> We're giving you the choice of taking the rebased version, or a
> non-rebased-but-merged-and-fixed-up version to avoid dealing with the
> excessive conflicts. The rebased one has the obvious benefit of not
> having duplicate commits in the tree for the same changes, but, well,
> it's rebased. Actual tree contents is identical though.

I'm taking the rebased one, thanks for the explanation. I really don't
like rebasing, but you did it for a valid reason, and it wasn't your
mistake. And duplicating the commits just to be a pain is not worth
it.

> I've pushed a resolved branch for reference (late-branches-resolved)
> in case you want to compare conflict resolutions.

So Arnd's tag talked about removing the stale gpio.h, but I think it
was the i2c.h that was now also stale. So I removed both - even though
technically, the merge should have left i2c.h since it was in both
parents. You should double-check that, but I don't see how that
<linux/i2c.h> could *possibly* be valid any more, and people had tried
(unsuccessfully) to remove it once already, so...

              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/