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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFw2DxwSDpmkkQvZvQ-Cs1s0Uo5XymhdjrH9C3fmJM6RXA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:01:43 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Amir Vadai <amir@...ai.me>, Maor Gottlieb <maorg@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rdma tree with the net-next tree

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> How about "This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
> non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
> when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may want also want to
> consider cooperate with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to
> minimise any particularly complex conflicts."

Yup, sounds fine.

Maybe you could even say "don't merge this to hide the problem",
because that has been another reaction in the past, but the above
already sounds pretty good.

                Linus

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ