lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jun]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: linux-next: the selinux tree needs cleaning up
    Quoting Stephen Rothwell (sfr@canb.auug.org.au):
    > Hi Paul,
    >
    > On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 15:47:01 -0400 Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > I want to avoid use a -rcX release as the foundation of any of my trees; the -
    > > rc releases aren't as stable and it goes against what we're trying to do with
    > > the different Linux Security trees. Unfortunately, based on what I've read
    > > above, this seems to be incompatible with linux-next.
    >
    > The problem with basing your development for v3.17 on v3.15 is that
    > you do not take into account any of the changes done by others during
    > v3.16-rc1 (or even your upstream tree) some of which may be core API
    > changes.
    >
    > > While I hate to split my development branch from the #next branch, it seems
    >
    > I don't want that either ...
    >
    > > like that is the only way to accomplish both a reasonably current and stable
    > > development tree and get the patches into linux-next. Unless you, or anyone
    > > else for that matter, has a different suggestion I'm going to go ahead and
    > > turn the current SELinux #next branch into a development branch and create a
    > > new #next branch that will be based on the most current -rc1, this new #next
    > > branch will be created new for each major release. Not exactly what I was
    > > hoping for, but will that work?
    >
    > Do you mean that your #next branch will just be a merge of -rc1 and
    > your development branch? That would not actually change anything
    > (except that you would possibly take care of some conflicts for me).
    >
    > At the core, what is in linux-next should just be exactly what will be
    > merged by your upstream. My real point here is that that is not what
    > has happened recently. The patches in your tree have been
    > cherry-picked or rebased into James' or Serge's trees, not merged so we
    > now have duplication. This is what you need to solve with James and
    > Serge. linux-next is a side issue - I can cope with a lot.

    The duplicates were the result of several misunderstandings and general
    naivity all on my part. I'm actually still not clear on what usually
    happens with the selinux tree - it feeds into linux-next, then gets
    'pull'ed by James into security-next for a pull request? Do you usually
    send a request to James when ready, he pulls, then he sends pull request
    to Linus? (Or am I wrong, and you usually send your own requests to
    Linus?)

    -serge


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2014-06-20 06:01    [W:3.141 / U:0.348 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site