linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: rebase of the drivers-x86 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20130715101306.6d6fc3cb42ce956130606ac2@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:	Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:13:06 +1000
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc:	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: rebase of the drivers-x86 tree

Hi Matthew,

On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 20:08:39 -0400 Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> wrote:
>
> Because I noticed that one of the patches changed the permissions on a
> file to 755 and rewrote it. 

That is hardly a reason to rebase your tree.  Just add another commit to
correct the situation.  The tree as it stood would not have affected
anyone's building, running or bisecting.

And why do I now have three versions of your tree?  The one in linux-next
on Friday, the one in linux-next today, and the one you asked Linus to
pull.

I hope you don't have any developers trying to develop stuff based on
your tree :-(

And yes, this is a rhetorical question, just trying to get you to think
about your process.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped