linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: rebase of lblnet 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 10 Jul 2013 23:09:47 -0400
From:	Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: rebase of lblnet tree

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 10:01:17 AM Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,

Hi Stephen,

I know you already emailed me privately about my @hp.com email address, but 
for the sake of everyone else on the list, my @hp.com address no longer works, 
it hasn't for some time now.  Please check my entry in the MAINTAINERS file 
for my correct contact information (this email address).  That said, I 
established this current email address to avoid problems when changing 
employers so hopefully this confusion won't happen again in the future.

> Why have you just rebased the lblnet tree
> (git://git.infradead.org/users/pcmoore/lblnet-2.6_next#master)?  You have
> just invalidated your testing and made it likely that Linus will blast
> you if you ask him to pull your tree.  Your whole tree was already based
> after v3.10 (i.e. released or rebased after the merge window opened), so
> why move it again?

[NOTE: I get the impression that the above is a "form letter" email, but just 
in case ...]

When I added two additional patches to the labeled networking tree today, I 
rebased the tree to verify that there were no merge conflicts and that 
everything worked as expected on a booted system.  I also occasionally rebase 
the tree when there are pending patches and I'm not adding anything new for 
the same reason: I believe that testing changes against the latest upstream 
code is a Good Thing.  If there is a patch with my sign-off in a tree I am 
responsible for, I do my best to make sure it builds, boots, and passes some 
basic sanity tests.  I can't say I'm perfect, but I do try to not push crap 
upwards.

Also, just to be clear, the labeled networking tree usually goes into Linus' 
tree via the netdev or security tree (and then it hits the security tree 
usually via the SELinux tree).  I can't ever think of a time when I asked 
Linus' to pull a tree of mine directly.

If this approach doesn't work for you, please let me know and preferably 
suggest an alternative.

-Paul

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com

--
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/