Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 25 Jun 2014 20:51:43 +1000 | From | James Morris <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: the selinux tree needs cleaning up |
| |
On 06/25/2014 09:59 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 14:03:08 -0400 Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote: >> >> On Friday, June 20, 2014 12:06:28 PM Paul Moore wrote: >> >> {big snip} >> >>> Stephen, assuming for a moment that I created a fresh branch, based against >>> 3.15, and then added the SELinux patches for 3.16 (basically the few new >>> patches that were in the ole #next branch) would that serve as a reasonable >>> basis for a new SELinux #next branch? Around the -rc5/6/7 timeframe I would >>> send a pull request to James to pull from this next branch into the Linux >>> Security branch for 3.17. Once 3.16 is released, I would merge that into >>> this new #next branch and continue with the next round of patches. >>> >>> FYI, more or less, the above is the process we've settled upon for all of >>> the trees that get accumulated into the Linux Security tree. >> >> Does the above work for you in linux-next? I'd like to try and resolve this >> sooner rather than later and I imagine you feel the same ... > > Well, I see that James has pulled your tree, so past problems are now > moot. He has some duplicate commits in his tree now and Linus will get > a few more when he next pulls James' tree. We just need to avoid this > going forward. And given that James or Serge will, from now on, *pull* > your tree (not cherry-pick from it), things should be fine. >
I haven't pulled in Paul's tree, I merged with the latest Linus release.
| |