Jens Neuhalfen wrote:
The repository is my current development repository which, naturally (?), is based on the 'blessed' repository. My understanding of git was, that anyone with a copy of the blessed git repository can 'pull' from my repository and gets my branches with git transmitting just my changes over the net. Then he/she/it can switch to 'my' branch and test the policy/init-script.
Did I get something wrong there? I thought that this is a/the normal way of using git.
Well I'm sure you could use it this way; but check for yourself, if you
start gitk on your repository, one has to first figure out where to find
you work, i.e. one has to follow the right parent in your commits to see
all of them; it's certainly possible but I guess not very inviting for
people who just want to *look* at your work (as opposed to simply try it
out). I'll readily admit that I just wanted to look, not try it out. But
maybe I'm not the only one with this as his/her primary aim.
You are right with the commits and their rather terse messages, though the code are not ready for release or an integration review. The plan was: Get some feedback on the current state, refine the code and then send the patches to the list.
Ok, maybe how you're doing it is just fine, I'll leave it to others to
judge. But still you should be aware that it's common practice with Git
to first clean up private history before publishing it. The history can
explain the code much better than is possible by just looking at the
latest committed version, and since with Git it is possible to rework
the history as long at it is private, people frequently do it, so that
the readers can get most out of it. (This is more akin to patch sets,
where each patch does a certain thing -- versus work steps, which
documents how you created the changes. The latter documentation is
really only of interest for you, for others it's the intended changes
which matter. So you could "git branch my_selinux_prepublish_1" to keep
the latter history in case you want to look at it again later, then do
the history cleanup as I've suggested and publish that instead. And
continue to work on that reworked branch, actually.)
Christian, have you been able to test the policy? I am very curious, how it works on other machines (say, gentoo) or with other setups (strict-policy is completely untested, although I don't think that anyone really uses it).
I don't have any SELinux setup here. I'm playing with the thought of
looking into it, that's why the subject of your mail has catched my
attention.
Thanks,
Christian.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
