From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Morris Subject: Re: linux-next: unneeded merge in the security tree Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:10:53 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: References: <20130312100950.e45ef0e721492ff0d5fd7c8d@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from tundra.namei.org ([65.99.196.166]:38943 "EHLO tundra.namei.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750714Ab3CLEKC (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Mar 2013 00:10:02 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130312100950.e45ef0e721492ff0d5fd7c8d@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Linus , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 12 Mar 2013, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > [James, I am not picking on you, just using your tree to illustrate a > point.] > > The top commit in the security tree today is a merge of v3.9-rc2. This > is a completely unnecessary merge as the tree before the merge was a > subset of v3.9-rc1 and so if the merge had been done using anything but > the tag, it would have just been a fast forward. I know that this is now > deliberate behaviour on git's behalf, but isn't there some way we can > make this easier on maintainers who are just really just trying to pick a > new starting point for their trees after a release? (at least I assume > that is what James was trying to do) Yes, and I was merging to a tag as required by Linus. -- James Morris