linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] block fixes for 3.9-rc

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]

Date:	Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:57:26 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] block fixes for 3.9-rc

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>
> Outside of "that's what I have always done", the intent was for others
> that send patches through me to know what to base it off, if not
> previous release. All those folks know that for-3.x/drivers is for the
> next x release, and that for-linus is for the existing tree.

Ok. Whatever. Feel free to continue doing it, but at least then make
sure that the pull message refers to "tags/for-linus" and not that
ambiguous "for-linus" thing.

Because you screwed up that pull request, and I argue that you screwed
up exactly *because* it's ambiguous and confusing.  The confusion may
have happened before too, but because git will silently default to the
branch for the ambiguous case, I just never noticed that I didn't
actually get the proper signature. Now I noticed, because you said it
was signed and yet my pull got the non-signed thing.

              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/