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 <jmor...@namei.org>
