Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree

2012-12-13 Thread James Morris
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi James, > > On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:21:31 +1100 (EST) James Morris > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > Have people pulled that thing into anything else? Because quite > > > frankly, I think it's unsalvageable excep

Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree

2012-12-12 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi James, On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:21:31 +1100 (EST) James Morris wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > Have people pulled that thing into anything else? Because quite > > frankly, I think it's unsalvageable except with a rebase. > > AFAIK, only developers such as Casey will h

Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree

2012-12-06 Thread Casey Schaufler
On 12/6/2012 3:21 PM, James Morris wrote: > On Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> Have people pulled that thing into anything else? Because quite >> frankly, I think it's unsalvageable except with a rebase. > AFAIK, only developers such as Casey will have pulled it for development > purpo

Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree

2012-12-06 Thread James Morris
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Have people pulled that thing into anything else? Because quite > frankly, I think it's unsalvageable except with a rebase. AFAIK, only developers such as Casey will have pulled it for development purposes. And sorry, I should be checking the trees I

Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree

2012-12-06 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi James, On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:25:21 -0800 Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Have people pulled that thing into anything else? Because quite > frankly, I think it's unsalvageable except with a rebase. So to be explicit, I think you need to do this: - tell as many people as possible that you a

Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree

2012-12-06 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 5:25 AM, James Morris 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 *exac

Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree

2012-12-06 Thread James Morris
Any suggestions on how to fix this? That branch is public, and what people use to develop against, so I can't rebase it. On Wed, 28 Nov 2012, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Casey, > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:45:17 -0800 Casey Schaufler > wrote: > > > > On 11/27/2012 3:16 PM, Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree

2012-12-03 Thread James Morris
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Nov 27, 2012 4:01 PM, "Stephen Rothwell" wrote: > > > > Hi > > This is the shortlog for the changes in the security tree between > > yesterday and today; > > This is an excellent example of the kind of tree I will not pull from. > > There are more

Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree

2012-11-27 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi Casey, On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:45:17 -0800 Casey Schaufler wrote: > > On 11/27/2012 3:16 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > The security tree > > (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security.git#next) > > looks a bit strange today ... It appears to have been created by

Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree

2012-11-27 Thread Stephen Rothwell
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:30:31 -0800 Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: > > > > If that is what happened, it may be worth always using the --no-ff flag > > to git merge/pull to make sure that the top commit on your tree always > > has you as the c

Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree

2012-11-27 Thread Casey Schaufler
On 11/27/2012 3:16 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi James, > > The security tree > (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security.git#next) > looks a bit strange today ... It appears to have been created by Casey > Schaufler (cc'd) and contains some quite old commits and bac

Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree

2012-11-27 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > If that is what happened, it may be worth always using the --no-ff flag > to git merge/pull to make sure that the top commit on your tree always > has you as the committer (and maybe SOB). > > Linus, does that make sense in general for m

Re: linux-next: unusual update of the security tree

2012-11-27 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi James, On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:16:35 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > The security tree > (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security.git#next) > looks a bit strange today ... It appears to have been created by Casey > Schaufler (cc'd) and contains some quite old com

linux-next: unusual update of the security tree

2012-11-27 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi James, The security tree (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security.git#next) looks a bit strange today ... It appears to have been created by Casey Schaufler (cc'd) and contains some quite old commits and back merges of your tree. I *guess* you have merged in Casey'