linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] Docs: Modernize SubmittingPatches

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]

Message-ID: <20141218192816.GC11764@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 18 Dec 2014 19:28:16 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Corey Minyard <cminyard@...sta.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Docs: Modernize SubmittingPatches

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:52:51AM -0500, Jonathan Corbet wrote:

> +15) Sending "git pull" requests
> +-------------------------------

> +If you have a series of patches, it may be most convenient to have the
> +maintainer pull them directly into the subsystem repository with a
> +"git pull" operation.  Note, however, that pulling patches from a developer
> +requires a higher degree of trust than taking patches from a mailing list.
> +As a result, many subsystem maintainers are reluctant to take pull
> +requests, especially from new, unknown developers.

Probably worth adding something like "If in doubt you can use the pull
request as the cover letter for a normal posting of the patch series,
giving the maintainer the option of using either or both" - that way
even if someone guesses wrong about the pull request being appropriate
things will most likely be OK anyway.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)