From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-edac <linux-edac@vger.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] EDAC updates for v6.4
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 19:35:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230425173520.GDZEgPWMmi7ZXrTLs2@fat_crate.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wgrN-uPnNTamBwrxMgibBH9N9zX57nbDW7_hLdi4SstQw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 09:55:14AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So I'm not asking for surgical precision. I'm asking for "reasonable
> workflow", where people avoid doing pointlessly silly things.
As always, I really appreciate elaborating on the whole reasoning behind
this.
While we're on the topic: when we send you tip urgent fixes, we base
each branch off of the current -rc, put the urgent fixes ontop, test,
... and send them to you in a week's time, roughly.
Now, after you've pulled, we could fast-forward the urgent branch to the
next -rc where new fixes come - and I do that most of the time - or we
could not do that because of, as you say, if there's no really good
reason to fast-forward (important other fix, new functionality from the
newest -rc a patch needs, yadda yadda) then those urgent branches do not
necessarily have to be fast-forwarded but simply get more fixes applied
ontop.
Right, that makes sense.
Oh, and I'm sure if a branch is based on what looks like a random point
but there's a good explanation accompanying it why it is based on that
random point, then I guess that's perfectly fine too.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-25 17:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-24 7:28 [GIT PULL] EDAC updates for v6.4 Borislav Petkov
2023-04-25 16:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-04-25 17:35 ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
2023-04-25 17:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-04-25 18:00 ` pr-tracker-bot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20230425173520.GDZEgPWMmi7ZXrTLs2@fat_crate.local \
--to=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=linux-edac@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).