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  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:   Tue, 23 Oct 2018 11:02:45 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <>
To:     Linus Torvalds <>
Cc:     Boris Brezillon <>,
        Catalin Marinas <>,
        Christoph Hellwig <>,
        Guenter Roeck <>,
        Jacek Anaszewski <>,
        Jens Axboe <>,
        Linus Walleij <>,
        Mark Brown <>,
        Ulf Hansson <>,
        Greg KH <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>
Subject: Re: Git pull ack emails..

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 09:41:32AM +0100, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Because yes, the second option likely works fine in most cases, but my
> pull might not actually be final *if* something goes bad (where  bad
> might be just "oops, my tests showed a semantic conflict, I'll need to
> fix up my merge" to "I'm going to have to look more closely at that
> warning" to "uhhuh, I'm going to just undo the pull entirely because
> it ended up being broken").

Is that a big problem ? I mean probably those who need an ACK just want
to be sure their PR was not lost between them and you. It's not a guarantee
that the code will be kept till the release anyway, and I tend to think
that changing your mind after attempting a build is not different than
changing your mind 3 days later. So when this happens, you're possibly
expected to simply notify the author later saying "sorry, I changed my
mind and finally I dropped your code for this or that reason". That
should be enough to cover the vast majority of use cases, no ?

Just my two cents,

Powered by blists - more mailing lists