Paul merged your -next branch into his branch which already included 3.13, and then rebased his new patches on top of that. So he's still ahead of you. I honestly believe pulling what he first requested is the right thing. But since James won't pull... Paul, I think you need to instead do a BEFORE_MERGE=8ed814602876bec9bad2649ca17f34b499357a1c BEFORE_FIRST_COMMIT=2146749d6db31f82691290dcad0827bb6a84d06b~1 LAST_COMMIT=3a501ff06773c33571eac7c6c425c10c99f08401 git rebase --onto $BEFORE_MERGE $BEFORE_FIRST_COMMIT $LAST_COMMIT git branch -D next-jmorris #delete this last next-jmorris which contains 3.13 git checkout -b next-jmorris #recreate next-jmorris based on the last SELinux tree git push -f origin jmorris-next:jmorris-next -Eric On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:50 PM, James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 18 Mar 2014, Paul Moore wrote: > >> On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 01:26:40 PM James Morris wrote: >> > 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. >> >> My mistake, the new branch is "next-jmorris". > > 195 files changed, 1348 insertions(+), 885 deletions(-) > > You should be using my next branch as your upstream. > > > > -- > 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.
