linux-kernel - Re: GFS2: Pull Request

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: <CAHc6FU40HucCUzx5k2obs8m6dXS08NmXBM-tFOq7fSbLduHiGw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 May 2019 22:17:12 +0200
From:   Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     cluster-devel <cluster-devel@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>
Subject: Re: GFS2: Pull Request

Linus,

On Wed, 8 May 2019 at 20:06, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 10:55 AM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > See what I'm saying? You would ask me to pull the un-merged state, but
> > then say "I noticed a few merge conflicts when I did my test merge,
> > and this is what I did" kind of aside.
>
> Side note: this is more important if you know of a merge issue that
> doesn't cause a conflict, and that I won't see in my simple build
> tests.
>
> For example, in this case, the merge issue doesn't cause a conflict
> (because it's a totally new user of bio_for_each_segment_all() and the
> syntax changed in another branch), but I see it trivially when I do a
> test build, since the compiler spews out lots of warnings, and so I
> can trivially fix it up (and you _mentioning_ the issue gives me the
> heads up that you knew about it and what it's all about).
>
> But if it's other architectures, or only happens under special config
> options etc, I might not have seen the merge issue at all. And then
> it's really good if the maintainer talks about it and shows that yes,
> the maintainer knows what he's doing.
>
> Now I'm in the situation where I have actually done the merge the way
> I *like* doing them, and without your superfluous merge commit. But if
> I use my merge, I'll lose the signature from your tag, because you
> signed *your* merge that I didn't actually want to use at all.
>
> See? Your "helpful" merge actually caused me extra work, and made me
> have to pick one of two *worse* situations than if you had just tagged
> your own development tree. Either my tree has a extra pointless merge
> commit, or my tree lacks your signature on your work.

Ok, got it.

Would it make sense to describe how to deal with merge conflicts in
Documentation/maintainer/pull-requests.rst to stop people from getting
this wrong over and over again?

Thanks,
Andreas