linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] gfs2: 4.20 fixes

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, 15 Nov 2018 12:23:09 -0600
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     agruenba@...hat.com
Cc:     cluster-devel@...hat.com,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] gfs2: 4.20 fixes

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 12:20 PM Andreas Gruenbacher
<agruenba@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> I guess rebasing the for-next branch onto something more recent to
> avoid the back-merge in the first place will be best, resulting in a
> cleaner history.

Rebases aren't really any better at all.

If you have a real *reason* for a merge, do the merge. But then the
reason should be clearly stated in the merge commit. Not just some
random undocumented merge message. Tell why some other branch was
relevant to your fix and needed to be pulled in.

Better yet, don't do either merges or rebases.

             Linus