From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1750944AbdIJEcd (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Sun, 10 Sep 2017 00:32:33 -0400
Received: from namei.org ([65.99.196.166]:34772 "EHLO namei.org"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1750807AbdIJEcc (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Sun, 10 Sep 2017 00:32:32 -0400
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 14:32:03 +1000 (AEST)
From: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
To: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Security subsystem updates for 4.14
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhR2c1rC4--1Br0cx+3eALLdB8Oishw7wwcGwb1_3qN8+w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1709101419360.22614@namei.org>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1709041959220.27950@namei.org> <CA+55aFw8wgA+jhBOhnY-TSdbPgiYcrFiipCV=rsS1=GQEN+JgQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1709081448090.7880@namei.org> <20170908070943.GA26549@infradead.org> <CA+55aFwMgUJSMQ96XdKnTbn8UsxzHTb8tZQdH40nxDeF7fWObw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHC9VhR2c1rC4--1Br0cx+3eALLdB8Oishw7wwcGwb1_3qN8+w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Paul Moore wrote:

> > This is also why I tend to prefer getting multiple branches for
> > independent things.

[...]

> 
> Is it time to start sending pull request for each LSM and thing under
> security/ directly?  I'm not sure I have a strong preference either
> way, I just don't want to see the SELinux changes ignored during the
> merge window.

They won't be ignored, we just need to get this issue resolved now and 
figure out how to implement multiple branches in the security tree.

Looking at other git repos, the x86 folk have multiple branches.

One option for me would be to publish the trees I pull from as branches 
along side mine, with 'next' being a merge of all of directly applied 
patchsets and those ready for Linus to pull as one.

So, branches in 
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security

might be:

  next-selinux         (Paul's next branch)
  next-apparmor-next   (JJ's next branch)
  next-integrity-next  (Mimi's)
  next-tpm-next        (Jarkko's)
  [etc.]

  next                 (merge all of the above to here)

That way, we have a coherent 'next' branch for people to develop against 
and to push to Linus, but he can pull individual branches feeding into it 
if something is broken in one of them.

Does that sound useful?


-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@namei.org>