On Thu, 13 Dec 2012, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:21:31 +1100 (EST) James Morris
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > > Have people pulled that thing into anything else? Because quite
> > > frankly, I think it's unsalvageable
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi James,
On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:21:31 +1100 (EST) James Morris jmor...@namei.org
wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Have people pulled that thing into anything else? Because quite
frankly, I think it's unsalvageable
Hi James,
On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:21:31 +1100 (EST) James Morris wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > Have people pulled that thing into anything else? Because quite
> > frankly, I think it's unsalvageable except with a rebase.
>
> AFAIK, only developers such as Casey will
Hi James,
On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:21:31 +1100 (EST) James Morris jmor...@namei.org wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Have people pulled that thing into anything else? Because quite
frankly, I think it's unsalvageable except with a rebase.
AFAIK, only developers such as
On 12/6/2012 3:21 PM, James Morris wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>> Have people pulled that thing into anything else? Because quite
>> frankly, I think it's unsalvageable except with a rebase.
> AFAIK, only developers such as Casey will have pulled it for development
>
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Have people pulled that thing into anything else? Because quite
> frankly, I think it's unsalvageable except with a rebase.
AFAIK, only developers such as Casey will have pulled it for development
purposes.
And sorry, I should be checking the trees I
Hi James,
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:25:21 -0800 Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> Have people pulled that thing into anything else? Because quite
> frankly, I think it's unsalvageable except with a rebase.
So to be explicit, I think you need to do this:
- tell as many people as possible that you
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 5:25 AM, James Morris wrote:
> Any suggestions on how to fix this? That branch is public, and what
> people use to develop against, so I can't rebase it.
Quite frankly, I really am not going to pull that. It has random crazy
merges for no reason what-so-ever. This is
Any suggestions on how to fix this? That branch is public, and what
people use to develop against, so I can't rebase it.
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Casey,
>
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:45:17 -0800 Casey Schaufler
> wrote:
> >
> > On 11/27/2012 3:16 PM, Stephen Rothwell
Any suggestions on how to fix this? That branch is public, and what
people use to develop against, so I can't rebase it.
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi Casey,
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:45:17 -0800 Casey Schaufler ca...@schaufler-ca.com
wrote:
On 11/27/2012 3:16 PM,
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 5:25 AM, James Morris jmor...@namei.org wrote:
Any suggestions on how to fix this? That branch is public, and what
people use to develop against, so I can't rebase it.
Quite frankly, I really am not going to pull that. It has random crazy
merges for no reason
Hi James,
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:25:21 -0800 Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
Have people pulled that thing into anything else? Because quite
frankly, I think it's unsalvageable except with a rebase.
So to be explicit, I think you need to do this:
- tell as many
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Have people pulled that thing into anything else? Because quite
frankly, I think it's unsalvageable except with a rebase.
AFAIK, only developers such as Casey will have pulled it for development
purposes.
And sorry, I should be checking the trees I
On 12/6/2012 3:21 PM, James Morris wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Have people pulled that thing into anything else? Because quite
frankly, I think it's unsalvageable except with a rebase.
AFAIK, only developers such as Casey will have pulled it for development
purposes.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2012 4:01 PM, "Stephen Rothwell" wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> > This is the shortlog for the changes in the security tree between
> > yesterday and today;
>
> This is an excellent example of the kind of tree I will not pull from.
>
> There are
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Nov 27, 2012 4:01 PM, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote:
Hi
This is the shortlog for the changes in the security tree between
yesterday and today;
This is an excellent example of the kind of tree I will not pull from.
There
Hi Casey,
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:45:17 -0800 Casey Schaufler
wrote:
>
> On 11/27/2012 3:16 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> > The security tree
> > (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security.git#next)
> > looks a bit strange today ... It appears to have been created
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:30:31 -0800 Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell
> wrote:
> >
> > If that is what happened, it may be worth always using the --no-ff flag
> > to git merge/pull to make sure that the top commit on your tree always
> > has you as the
On 11/27/2012 3:16 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> The security tree
> (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security.git#next)
> looks a bit strange today ... It appears to have been created by Casey
> Schaufler (cc'd) and contains some quite old commits and
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> If that is what happened, it may be worth always using the --no-ff flag
> to git merge/pull to make sure that the top commit on your tree always
> has you as the committer (and maybe SOB).
>
> Linus, does that make sense in general for
Hi James,
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:16:35 +1100 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> The security tree
> (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security.git#next)
> looks a bit strange today ... It appears to have been created by Casey
> Schaufler (cc'd) and contains some quite old
Hi James,
The security tree
(git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security.git#next)
looks a bit strange today ... It appears to have been created by Casey
Schaufler (cc'd) and contains some quite old commits and back merges of
your tree. I *guess* you have merged in
Hi James,
The security tree
(git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security.git#next)
looks a bit strange today ... It appears to have been created by Casey
Schaufler (cc'd) and contains some quite old commits and back merges of
your tree. I *guess* you have merged in
Hi James,
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:16:35 +1100 Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au
wrote:
The security tree
(git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security.git#next)
looks a bit strange today ... It appears to have been created by Casey
Schaufler (cc'd) and contains
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote:
If that is what happened, it may be worth always using the --no-ff flag
to git merge/pull to make sure that the top commit on your tree always
has you as the committer (and maybe SOB).
Linus, does that make sense
On 11/27/2012 3:16 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi James,
The security tree
(git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security.git#next)
looks a bit strange today ... It appears to have been created by Casey
Schaufler (cc'd) and contains some quite old commits and back
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:30:31 -0800 Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au
wrote:
If that is what happened, it may be worth always using the --no-ff flag
to git merge/pull to make sure that the top
Hi Casey,
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:45:17 -0800 Casey Schaufler ca...@schaufler-ca.com
wrote:
On 11/27/2012 3:16 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
The security tree
(git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security.git#next)
looks a bit strange today ... It appears to have
28 matches
Mail list logo
