lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree
    On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 5:25 AM, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote:
    > Any suggestions on how to fix this? That branch is public, and what
    > people use to develop against, so I can't rebase it.

    Quite frankly, I really am not going to pull that. It has random crazy
    merges for no reason what-so-ever. This is *exactly* the kind of stuff
    I used to speak out against years ago, and I thought we had long since
    put behind us. Do

    git fetch git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security
    next
    gitk ..FETCH_HEAD

    from mainline to see what I'm talking about. It has all those random
    merges interspersed with random sporadic development. This is not how
    we make history make sense.

    It looks like Casey has for the last year+ just had his own tree, done
    his own thing, and then pulled from the 'next' branch of security at
    random points to intermix his occasional commits with everything
    else.So now all his sporadic commits are randomly intermixed together
    with *everything* else that happened over the last year. It's kind of
    the epitome of not-a-feature-branch.

    There are 26 "normal" commits spread out over the year, coupled with
    22 merges that have been done bi-weekly or something, and have
    altogether brought in 13 *thousand* commits that have very little to
    do with the 26 commits that are new work. And with many of the merges
    done despite that development tree having *no* development in it of
    its own, so you have those repeated "let's merge upstream code" pulls
    that only add upstream code with no development in between.

    This is the kind of development that should be kept private, and maybe
    using a "git pull --rebase" to maintain the private commits on top of
    whatever upstream. NOT be used to say "ok, I now have more than a year
    of messy development history of 22 changes randomly interspersed with
    the thirteen thousand commits that went into mainline during that
    year+ time".

    Or it should just have been a development branch that only did its own
    development and never pulled from upstream.

    Have people pulled that thing into anything else? Because quite
    frankly, I think it's unsalvageable except with a rebase.

    Linus


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-12-06 18:01    [W:2.414 / U:0.684 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site