Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] ssh signing: verify ssh-keygen in test prereq

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Dec 02 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Fabian Stelzer <fs@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Yes, that looks good. In this case the conflict is rather trivial, but
>> how could i prevent this / make it easier for you to merge these?
>> Especially since in this case the conflict only arose after a reroll
>> when both topics were already in seen. For a new topic i can of course
>> make them as "on top of XXX". Should I in the future rebase the
>> "support non ssh-* keytypes" topic on top of this series and mark it
>> as such? Or whats a good way to deal with things like this? (besides
>> avoiding merge conflicts altogether :D)
>
> For this particular one, my rerere database already knows how the
> conflict and its resolution should look like, so there is nothing
> that is urgently needed.
>
> If the other topic were to be rerolled, since either has hit 'next',
> basing it on top of the other, essentially making the result into a
> single series, may be the easiest (and that is basically avoiding
> conflicts altogether ;-).

...but to answer a bit of Fabian's question: Just as someone giving
these two topics a brief look it's not clear to me why the existing
GPGSSH prerequisite needs an adjustment at the same time as adding a
test that uses it (in addition to existing tests).

I.e. was it that it was always wrong, in that case I'd expect a patch
that fixes the prereq and doesn't make any other test changes in the
same commit as [1] does.

Or does it need to be more strict to cater to one new test being added
in the same commit, but that strictness doesn't apply to existing tests?

Then maybe it should be a new GPGSSH_THAT_NEW_REQUIRED_FEATURE, which
can in turn depend on the GPGSSH prerequisite.

Which, incidentally would help with any textual conflict, but more
importantly makes for clearer end-state, and maps prerequisites to those
existing tests that need those specific things, and not a more stricter
& recent requirement.

I don't know/think that any of this needs re-rolling, just my 0.02.

1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/20211119150707.3924636-2-fs@xxxxxxxxxxxx/



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux