On Mon, 17 Mar 2014, Paul Moore wrote: > On Monday, March 17, 2014 07:21:59 AM Eric Paris wrote: > > You think a security tree based on 3.13-rc7 is good and Paul, who > > tested on the actual release of 3.13 is bad? > > > > I know you got yelled at for randomly picking fast forward-ish merge > > points, but now you've got a crappy merge point. Apparently, it was > > needed it for the Xen/TPM work (not sure why YOU merged it instead of > > the TPM people, but that's beside the point). > > > > But the problem stands. You are based on a crummy location. When are > > you going to pick up 3.13? After 3.14 is out? > > > > Seems like Paul's move to include 3.13 made a lot of sense... > > This issue with the linux-security tree keeps coming up and I stand by my > earlier statements that I would much prefer if the linux-security is based off > the latest kernel release, e.g. 3.13 as of today. This seems to be in keeping > with Linus' comments, fits with what Eric was doing back when he managed the > SELinux tree, and strikes a nice balance between stability and "newness". I > plan on continuing with this approach for the SELinux tree. > > However, I don't want the 3.15 patches to get lost due to these stupid > differences so I've created a new branch that has the SELinux 3.15 patches > applied on top of linux-security#next. > > * git://git.infradead.org/users/pcmoore/selinux next What's the new branch? That seems to be the same. -- James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Selinux mailing list Selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe, send email to Selinux-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx. To get help, send an email containing "help" to Selinux-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
