Pruning dead/obsolete branches?

Pruning dead/obsolete branches?

[Stephen Smalley]

Hi,

There are a number of old branches in the selinux repo that I think can
be safely pruned, but I wanted to confirm first.

The branches other than master are:
- autotools:  last attempt to convert over to using autotools.  Last
commit 2008.

- integration: last attempt to integrate src-policy into master?  Last
commit 2011.

- queue:  Eric's branch for changes queued for merging to master, kind
of a next branch.  Last commit Feb 2013.

- src-policy:  source policy module work.  Last commit 2010.

- src-revert:  Not really sure.  Last commit 2011.

- stable_1_0:  attempt to provide a long term stable series tracking the
1.x versions of selinux userspace for long term distro users.  Last
commit 2008.  Turned out to be pointless because the long term distros
did their own backporting and maintenance.

Any reason to retain any of these branches at this point?




--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: Pruning dead/obsolete branches?

[Steve Lawrence]

On 10/30/2013 02:56 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There are a number of old branches in the selinux repo that I think can
> be safely pruned, but I wanted to confirm first.
>
> The branches other than master are:
> - autotools:  last attempt to convert over to using autotools.  Last
> commit 2008.
>
> - integration: last attempt to integrate src-policy into master?  Last
> commit 2011.
>
> - queue:  Eric's branch for changes queued for merging to master, kind
> of a next branch.  Last commit Feb 2013.
>
> - src-policy:  source policy module work.  Last commit 2010.
>
> - src-revert:  Not really sure.  Last commit 2011.
>
> - stable_1_0:  attempt to provide a long term stable series tracking the
> 1.x versions of selinux userspace for long term distro users.  Last
> commit 2008.  Turned out to be pointless because the long term distros
> did their own backporting and maintenance.
>
> Any reason to retain any of these branches at this point?
>
>
>

src-revert, src-policy, and integration are all related to CIL with the 
eventual goal of getting it upstreamed. There is ongoing work with these 
branches, just not yet committed, so we should at least keep these around.

- Steve

--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: Pruning dead/obsolete branches?

[Joshua Brindle]

Stephen Smalley wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There are a number of old branches in the selinux repo that I think can
> be safely pruned, but I wanted to confirm first.
>
> The branches other than master are:
> - autotools:  last attempt to convert over to using autotools.  Last
> commit 2008.
>
> - integration: last attempt to integrate src-policy into master?  Last
> commit 2011.
>
> - queue:  Eric's branch for changes queued for merging to master, kind
> of a next branch.  Last commit Feb 2013.
>
> - src-policy:  source policy module work.  Last commit 2010.
>
> - src-revert:  Not really sure.  Last commit 2011.
>
> - stable_1_0:  attempt to provide a long term stable series tracking the
> 1.x versions of selinux userspace for long term distro users.  Last
> commit 2008.  Turned out to be pointless because the long term distros
> did their own backporting and maintenance.
>
> Any reason to retain any of these branches at this point?

Aside from queue +1 on removing all these.

For queue, I'm not sure if it is necessary or useful, I'll let Eric 
chime in.


--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: Pruning dead/obsolete branches?

[Stephen Smalley]

On 10/30/2013 02:56 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> There are a number of old branches in the selinux repo that I think can
> be safely pruned, but I wanted to confirm first.
> 
> The branches other than master are:
<snip>
> - queue:  Eric's branch for changes queued for merging to master, kind
> of a next branch.  Last commit Feb 2013.

So on the queue branch, I see many commits that have been merged albeit
in different form but others that have not, e.g.

commit 56834fe9295e9539da49ca7f02270389c29f31e0
Author: Dan Walsh <dwalsh@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue Feb 5 17:08:27 2013 -0500

    policycoreutils: seunshare: creating NEWIPC for each sandbox

    To make sure we don't have a conflict on semaphores or other IPC
    mechanisms between 2 sandboxes.

    Signed-off-by: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>

commit fcf02585e898360a631dbf7d3d383556d6f5c9a0
Author: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue Feb 5 15:15:14 2013 -0500

    policycoreutils: newrole: error on fcntl failure

    We were trying to clear O_NONBLOCK from fd 0,1,2 but did not check the
    return code.  We should check the return value and error out if it
    failed.

    Signed-off-by: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>

commit 1e5eff0e1685fc05549a4ae749f56efad6f8599a
Author: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue Feb 5 15:10:05 2013 -0500

    policycoreutils: newrole: check return of fcntl in relabel_tty

    In relabel_tty we open the tty O_NONBLOCK then immediately clear
    O_NONBLOCK.  This is so the open() will quickly return EWOULDBLOCK and
    we do not deadlock.  We were not checking the return value of the fcntl.
    Check that return value.

    Signed-off-by: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>

Were these intentionally dropped or just lost?


--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.