[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230425173520.GDZEgPWMmi7ZXrTLs2@fat_crate.local>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 19:35:20 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-edac <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] EDAC updates for v6.4
On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 09:55:14AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So I'm not asking for surgical precision. I'm asking for "reasonable
> workflow", where people avoid doing pointlessly silly things.
As always, I really appreciate elaborating on the whole reasoning behind
this.
While we're on the topic: when we send you tip urgent fixes, we base
each branch off of the current -rc, put the urgent fixes ontop, test,
... and send them to you in a week's time, roughly.
Now, after you've pulled, we could fast-forward the urgent branch to the
next -rc where new fixes come - and I do that most of the time - or we
could not do that because of, as you say, if there's no really good
reason to fast-forward (important other fix, new functionality from the
newest -rc a patch needs, yadda yadda) then those urgent branches do not
necessarily have to be fast-forwarded but simply get more fixes applied
ontop.
Right, that makes sense.
Oh, and I'm sure if a branch is based on what looks like a random point
but there's a good explanation accompanying it why it is based on that
random point, then I guess that's perfectly fine too.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists