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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 07 Aug 2014 09:35:56 +0200
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Global signal cleanup

Am 07.08.2014 02:28, schrieb Stephen Rothwell:
> Hi Richard,
> 
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 13:29:10 +0200 Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> wrote:
>>
>> Am 06.08.2014 13:27, schrieb Stephen Rothwell:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 13:18:54 +0200 Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> the following changes since commit 19583ca584d6f574384e17fe7613dfaeadcdc4a6:
>>>>
>>>>   Linux 3.16 (2014-08-03 15:25:02 -0700)
>>>>
>>>> are available in the git repository at:
>>>>
>>>>   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rw/misc.git signal-cleanup
>>>
>>> This has all been rebased onto v3.16 but none of the patches changed.
>>
>> This was my indention. Also I've added some acks.
>> Did I screw something up?
> 
> We discourage people from rebasing their trees just before asking Linus
> to pull them unless they have a good reason.  Adding Acks is not
> necessarily a good reason.  It may be a different thing if you rewrite
> your tree (without changing it base) and, given that none of your
> actual patches changed, that would have worked for you.
> 
> In your case, since you haven't updated the branch (signal_v4) that I
> fetch for linux-next, its doubly bad as, after Linus' pulls your tree,
> I will have two copies of all those patches in my tree - which could
> easily lead to conflicts that I really don't need to have.
> 
> Also, note that the fact that the actual patches did not change at all
> means that either you missed some change that coudl have justified the
> rebase, or the rebase was unnecessary (since the things you are
> patching did not change).
> 

Thanks for the kind explanation.
It would be nice to see these rules written down somewhere.

Thanks,
//richard


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists