linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] HID for 4.13

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]

Date:   Mon, 10 Jul 2017 20:57:08 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] HID for 4.13

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> >   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jikos/hid.git for-linus
> 
> I've pulled this, but looking at the thing, I absolutely _hate_ your
> merge commits.
> 
> They have no commit messages! They look like this:
> 
>     Merge branches 'for-4.13/ish' and 'for-4.13/ite' into for-linus
> 
>     Conflicts:
>             drivers/hid/hid-core.c
> 
> which doesn't tell anybody anything.
> 
> Please. If you can't make a message for a merge, don't do the merge.
> Send me the separate branches instead.
> 
> Or just write useful merge messages.
> 
> It's possible that you're running some truly ancient git version that
> didn't start an editor by default for merges. If so, upgrade your git
> install.
> 
> Either way, it's not ok to do merges without explanations. We have
> higher standards for kernel history than that.

Yeah, point taken. I usually have a lot of small-to-tiny topic branches, 
where I myself consider even the name of the branch often descriptive 
enough; but I agree that this might not be the case for someone else 
reviewing the merge.

Will continue with my current workflow and I'll increase the verbosity of 
the merge logs.

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs