Re: [GIT] Networking

[J. Bruce Fields]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 04:29:30PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 3:55 PM, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I should have put:
> >
> > Â Â Â ÂMerge to get commit 8909c9ad8ff03611c9c96c9a92656213e4bb495b
> > Â Â Â Â("net: don't allow CAP_NET_ADMIN to load non-netdev kernel modules")
> > Â Â Â Âso that we can add Stephen Hemminger's fix to handle ip6 tunnels
> > Â Â Â Âas well, which uses the MODULE_ALIAS_NETDEV() macro created by
> > Â Â Â Âthat change.
> 
> Yeah, that would have explained it. That said, if you are merging for
> something like that, may I suggest actually starting off with
> 
>    git merge 8909c9ad8ff03611c9c96c9a92656213e4bb495b
> 
> that then actually makes the history itself also show the relationship
> (you'd still have to write the commit message explaining why,

By the way, I occasionally wonder whether it would make sense to make a
habit of committing bugfixes on top of the commit that introduced the
bug (at least in cases where there *is* a single commit that introduced
the bug).

As with the above, it'd make the history a little more self-documenting.
It might simplify life for backporters.  (In theory, they could do
merges instead of a cherry-picks if they wanted to.)  The set of "bad"
commits would be described by "fix^...fix".

But then I had some mental image if your saying "WTF?" the first time I
send you a post-rc1 pull request that looks like an octopus merge of a
dozen little 1- or 2- commit branches based all over the place.

I dunno, would it be annoying?

--b.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/