Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754167AbaFRS0c (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:26:32 -0400 Received: from mail-qa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.216.46]:43496 "EHLO mail-qa0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752871AbaFRS0b (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:26:31 -0400 From: Paul Moore To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: linux-next: the selinux tree needs cleaning up Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:26:27 -0400 Message-ID: <1446656.4HCLD295vV@sifl> User-Agent: KMail/4.13.2 (Linux/3.14.5-gentoo; KDE/4.13.2; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20140618084046.1bce12cc@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20140618084046.1bce12cc@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 08:40:46 AM Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Paul, > > The selinux tree (git://git.infradead.org/users/pcmoore/selinux#next) > contains some commits going back to January and also has merges of > v3.13, v3.14 and v3.15 in it. If you rebase that tree onto v3.16-rc1, > you find that it has onlt 2 unique commits (the most recent 2) which > means that the others were merged upstream after being rewritten. :-( Without going through each of the differences between the SELinux tree and what is in Linus' tree in this email, I can assure you there is nothing nefarious going on here, just some differences in tree management between James' Linux Security tree and the SELinux tree which resulted in some backports and other mess. The good news is that James' and the rest of us under the Linux Security tree have now established a protocol moving forward which should avoid these nasties. So, back to your concerns - what do you want to see in linux-next? My practice for the SELinux #next branch has been to apply patches on top of the latest "major" release from Linus, e.g. 3.15, and when a new major release is made I merge it into #next and restart the process. I generally send James' a pull request in the -rc6/7 timeframe using the #next branch. While this has resulted in some ugliness (see above comments) it keeps the SELinux #next branch steady so others can pull from it without major problems. Does this approach not work for you and linux-next? -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/