linux-kernel - Re: Git pull ack emails..

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: <s5hk1m9qani.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
Date:   Tue, 23 Oct 2018 11:23:29 +0200
From:   Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Subject: Re: Git pull ack emails..

On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 11:02:45 +0200,
Willy Tarreau wrote:
> 
> 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 ?

Agreed, the ACK mail doesn't necessarily mean that everything right,
but just ACK that the pull request is being processed.  The e-mail
communication can go wrong pretty easily (happened once or twice for
my past PR's), so a simple ACK would relieve me wrt that point -- as
Greg's ACK did indeed.


thanks,

Takashi