linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

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: <xmqqr3f7rbck.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date:	Fri, 18 Mar 2016 09:37:31 -0700
From:	Junio C Hamano <gitster@...ox.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@....de>,
	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-gpio\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
	Git Mailing List <git@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:

> It's literally just the fact that "git merge" does it with no extra
> flags or checks. I'd like people to have to be aware of what they are
> doing when they merge two different projects, not do it by mistake.
>
> So making it conditional on a flag like "--no-common-root" is what I'd look for.

I think I said essentially the same thing in a separate message; I
am not sure "--no-common-root" is a good name, but I think it is
better to be more explicit than tying this to a strategy.

> I don't think the original "resolve" did it, for example. You can't do
> a three-way merge without a base.

Yes, and that continues to this day:

        # Give up if we are given two or more remotes -- not handling octopus.
        case "$remotes" in
        ?*' '?*)
                exit 2 ;;
        esac

        # Give up if this is a baseless merge.
        if test '' = "$bases"
        then
                exit 2
        fi

This is a tangent but I wonder if we should say why we refuse to
the standard error before calling these two "exit"s.