linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: unneeded merge in 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: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1303121510270.25612@tundra.namei.org>
Date:	Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:10:53 +1100 (EST)
From:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
cc:	Linus <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: unneeded merge in the security tree

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> [James, I am not picking on you, just using your tree to illustrate a
> point.]
> 
> The top commit in the security tree today is a merge of v3.9-rc2.  This
> is a completely unnecessary merge as the tree before the merge was a
> subset of v3.9-rc1 and so if the merge had been done using anything but
> the tag, it would have just been a fast forward.  I know that this is now
> deliberate behaviour on git's behalf, but isn't there some way we can
> make this easier on maintainers who are just really just trying to pick a
> new starting point for their trees after a release?  (at least I assume
> that is what James was trying to do)

Yes, and I was merging to a tag as required by Linus.


-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
--
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/