From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from goalie.tycho.ncsc.mil (goalie [144.51.242.250]) by tarius.tycho.ncsc.mil (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t3OGK5p7018218 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:20:06 -0400 Message-ID: <553A6D3D.8020904@schaufler-ca.com> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 09:20:13 -0700 From: Casey Schaufler MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Moore , James Morris Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] SELinux patches for 4.1 References: <1978116.cNUKEOv2T8@sifl> <14c8ec61728.2806.85c95baa4474aabc7814e68940a78392@paul-moore.com> <47618041.M4z7H003Sc@sifl> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, James Morris , selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: "Security-Enhanced Linux \(SELinux\) mailing list" List-Post: List-Help: On 4/24/2015 7:53 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 8:24 PM, James Morris wrote: >> On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Paul Moore wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 9:46 PM, James Morris wrote: >>>> On Wed, 8 Apr 2015, Paul Moore wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 6:57 AM, James Morris wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 6 Apr 2015, Paul Moore wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Removed the patch, it should now just contain the five patches described at >>>>>>> the start, and shown again below. It's based again the current security#next >>>>>>> branch so there should be no problems, at least there haven't been in my test >>>>>>> pulls. >>>>>> Ok, I'll pull it on the weekend when I get back from PTO. >>>>> Okay, thanks. When you get back I'd still be curious to hear how you >>>>> manage the security tree; my process works *ok* but I'm always looking >>>>> for new approaches that may work better. >>>> Currently I merge my next branch with Linus at -rc1 or -rc2, after >>>> experimenting with other approaches. I pull into that from security >>>> subsystems and push to Linus during the merge window. Do you need any >>>> more info? Not sure what else there is to add. >>>> >>>> For urgent fixes, I branch from Linus current (e.g. for-linus) and use >>>> that to push to Linus. This is a volatile branch which should not be >>>> tracked. >>> So no long running branches then? You simply recreate your next >>> branch every release? >> The next branch is long running. > I guess I misunderstood your merge with -rc1/-rc2 comment, I thought > you meant you rebased at each -rc1/-rc2. > James, do you suppose you could send an announcement when you do your merge? That would make it easier on the sub-tree maintainers. Just a quick "I merged the next branch to XXXX" to the LSM list.