Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHk-=wjS6cjjP+fkZWzzrdZ_fZ1F=PrAGcBc57vKCpNyoD73Vw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181023090245.GC23341@1wt.eu>
In-Reply-To: <20181023090245.GC23341@1wt.eu>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 23 Oct 2018 10:15:36 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgMCXxVuc72tA7kWJDpnZXdk-TrWfaRy1i_BdcBrAN70Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Git pull ack emails..
To:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc:     Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@gmail.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:03 AM Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 09:41:32AM +0100, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Because yes, the second option likely works fine in most cases, but my
> > pull might not actually be final *if* something goes bad (where  bad
> > might be just "oops, my tests showed a semantic conflict, I'll need to
> > fix up my merge" to "I'm going to have to look more closely at that
> > warning" to "uhhuh, I'm going to just undo the pull entirely because
> > it ended up being broken").
>
> Is that a big problem ? I mean probably those who need an ACK just want
> to be sure their PR was not lost between them and you.

That second case is what I personally suspect is the best balance
between convenience and "works most of the time".

And the "tentative pull" is almost always the final one. In fact, my
previous flow was to only send out emails in the (rare)  situation
where it wasn't - letting people know that I _tried_ to pull, but
there was some issue that resulted in me unpulling after the fact.

And that email wouldn't go away, so if I first send a "Pulled" ack
message, and then something bad happens and I unpull it, I would send
a second email anyway saying "oh, oops, not pulled after all".

I'm actually slightly hoping that people will just say they don't even
care, but I suspect people _did_ like getting the ack emails.

                           Linus