Re: linux-next: the selinux tree needs cleaning up

Stephen Rothwell
2014-06-24T23:59:38Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1448 bytes --]

Hi Paul,

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 14:03:08 -0400 Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
>
> On Friday, June 20, 2014 12:06:28 PM Paul Moore wrote:
>
> {big snip}
>
> > Stephen, assuming for a moment that I created a fresh branch, based against
> > 3.15, and then added the SELinux patches for 3.16 (basically the few new
> > patches that were in the ole #next branch) would that serve as a reasonable
> > basis for a new SELinux #next branch? Around the -rc5/6/7 timeframe I would
> > send a pull request to James to pull from this next branch into the Linux
> > Security branch for 3.17. Once 3.16 is released, I would merge that into
> > this new #next branch and continue with the next round of patches.
> >
> > FYI, more or less, the above is the process we've settled upon for all of
> > the trees that get accumulated into the Linux Security tree.
>
> Does the above work for you in linux-next? I'd like to try and resolve this
> sooner rather than later and I imagine you feel the same ...

Well, I see that James has pulled your tree, so past problems are now
moot. He has some duplicate commits in his tree now and Linus will get
a few more when he next pulls James' tree. We just need to avoid this
going forward. And given that James or Serge will, from now on, *pull*
your tree (not cherry-pick from it), things should be fine.

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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]