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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Fri, 6 Sep 2013 13:31:01 +1000
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: back merge of Linus' tree into the vfio tree

Hi Alex,

On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 17:14:29 -0600 Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2013-09-06 at 09:08 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > 
> > I noticed that you have back merged Linus' tree into yours.  Linus
> > usually takes a dim view of that - especially when there is no
> > explanation in the merge commit message.  i.e. you shouldn't to that
> > unless you really need to - and then you should explain why you did it.
> 
> Hmm, I was hoping that wouldn't be a problem, especially with no
> conflicts in the merge.  I did it because the first commit after the
> merge in my next tree depends on PCI changes that have already been
> merged by Linus.  Re-basing is an even bigger sin and I felt it better
> to do a merge than ask for two pulls or add an unbuild-able commit to my
> next tree.  How do you suggest that I resolve this?

See above ... you should have said all that in the merge commit message.
I guess that you should just own it now and explain it to Linus when you
ask him to pull your tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists