linux-kernel - Re: [PULL REQUEST] i2c for 4.11

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: <20170311155919.GA2553@tetsubishi>
Date:   Sat, 11 Mar 2017 16:59:20 +0100
From:   Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PULL REQUEST] i2c for 4.11

Linus,

> You added an extra revert, only to pull in the *exact* same patch. WTF?

The patch I reverted had a broken, typoed Signed-off. My rationale was
to have only a proper one, and not two different ones coming from
different trees. Looks like I misjudged, sorry.

> Please stop this kind of stupidity. Now I have that unnecessary revert
> with a misleading commit log in my tree, in addition to that stupid
> merge that has no explanation and just reinstates the exact same thing
> you reverted.

I see your point.

> And talking about that merge I will repeat this one more time: merges
> are commits too. You had damn well add explanations for what a merge
> merges and why it is done.

Understood. Peter joined as co-maintainer kind of recently, and I guess
it shows that I didn't have to pass on merges a lot so far. It is not
that I ignored your preferences for merges (which make total sense to
me), I just missed to check how to properly do it. Will improve!

Regards,

   Wolfram

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)