linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] configfs updates for 4.8

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]

Date:	Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:24:16 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] configfs updates for 4.8

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> FWIW, git request-pull is very likely to make complete mess of
> diffstat - all it takes is branch started at -rc1, then a merge from
> anything started at later point (e.g. Miklos asking to pull ->d_real()
> work from his tree into vfs.git, with his branch starting at -rc5).

Yes. git request-pull doesn't do a real merge, and if you have
multiple merge bases, the diffstat is usually garbage (because you
also end up getting diffs that are all about the differences in merge
bases, not the branch itself).

So people who have more complex git history are certainly encouraged to

 (a) do their own test-merge anyway, just to see that everything is
fine, and to be able to report to me about merge conflicts

 (b) use the result of that test-merge to generate a better diff-stat
than git request-pull does.

So yes, people who have more complex git trees are very much welcome
to improve on git request-pull output. It's aoppreciated.

What is *not* appreciated is when people send something worse ;)

git request-pull tends to do really well for simple and
straightforward git users, which is what it's geared towards. If you
have linear history and don't do back-merges (which you shouldn't do
unless you really really know what you are doing anyway), you'll never
see the limitations of the stupid "just diff against the merge base"
approach.

            Linus