linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] fs idmapped updates for v6.2

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:   Tue, 13 Dec 2022 10:40:29 +0100
From:   Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] fs idmapped updates for v6.2

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 07:40:29PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 5:19 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Please note the tag contains all other branches for this cycle merged in.
> 
> Well, considering that the explanation basically assumed I had already
> merged those (and I had), I wish you also had made the diffstat and
> the shortlog reflect that.

I wasn't sure what the best way was.
I'll make a note to use a better shortlog this time.

> 
> As it was, now the diffstat and shortlog ends up containing not what
> this last pull request brought in, but what they *all* brought in...

I didn't want it to look like I was trying to hide the pretty obvious
ugliness of the branch by editing the shortlog.

> 
> I'm also not super-happy with how ugly your history for this branch
> was. You had literally merged the acl rework branch three times - at
> different points of that branch.

I hate the history of that branch. And I have zero idea why I didn't
rebase when I applied it before I pushed it into linux-next.

I really had to fight the __very__ strong urge to rebase before sending
this pr. I had to step outside for a walk to resist it.

> 
> Do we have other ugly history in the tree? Yes. But we've been getting
> better. This was _not_ one of those "getting better" moments.
> 
> Oh well. I can see what you wanted to do, and I agree with the end
> result, I just don't particularly like how this was done.
> 
> I've pulled it.

Thank you!
Christian