linux-next: empty commit in the security tree

linux-next: empty commit in the security tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 426 bytes --]

Hi James,

I noticed this commit in the security tree this morning:

commit 2c5f5c9a1d1b3559cbbda8e014706eb359566c00
Author: Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed Mar 19 16:46:04 2014 -0400

    selinux: fix the output of ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl for SELinux
    
It has no changes, just a commit message.  Did something go missing?

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: empty commit in the security tree

[Paul Moore]

On Friday, March 21, 2014 09:25:41 AM Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi James,
> 
> I noticed this commit in the security tree this morning:
> 
> commit 2c5f5c9a1d1b3559cbbda8e014706eb359566c00
> Author: Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>
> Date:   Wed Mar 19 16:46:04 2014 -0400
> 
>     selinux: fix the output of ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl for SELinux
> 
> It has no changes, just a commit message.  Did something go missing?

If I remember correctly James merged this patch into his security tree after I 
had applied it to the SELinux tree but before the SELinux tree was pulled into 
the security tree.  There was also some "differences in process" (see the LSM 
archives if you're interested) when it came to pulling the SELinux tree into 
the security tree, the end result is what you are seeing now.  The differences 
should be fixed going forward as James' has agreed to start merging regular 
releases (e.g. 3.14, 3.15, 3.16, ...) into the security tree so this shouldn't 
happen again.

The good news for this particular patch is that it *is* applied to the 
security tree, this duplicate/empty entry can be ignored.  I'm sorry for the 
confusion.

-Paul

-- 
paul moore
security and virtualization @ redhat