LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ulf Hansson <email@example.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Boris Brezillon <email@example.com>,
Catalin Marinas <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <email@example.com>,
Guenter Roeck <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Jacek Anaszewski <email@example.com>,
Jens Axboe <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Linus Walleij <email@example.com>,
Mark Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Greg KH <email@example.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Git pull ack emails..
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:13:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFrxJNM9TShLJhYm6L+Pp7F77u8FQ3Lk2WmatAma772btA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
On 23 October 2018 at 10:41, Linus Torvalds
> So I've obviously started pulling stuff for the merge window, and one
> of the things I noticed with Greg doing it for the last few weeks was
> that he has this habit (or automation) to send Ack emails when he
> In fact, I reacted to them not being there when he sent himself his
> fake pull messages. Because he didn't then send himself an ack for
> having pulled it ;(
> And I actually went into this saying "I'll try to do the same".
> But after having actually started doing the pulls, I notice how it
> doesn't work well with my traditional workflow, and so I haven't been
> doing it after all.
> In particular, the issue is that after each pull, I do a build test
> before the pull is really "final", and while that build test is
> ongoing (which takes anything from a few minutes to over an hour when
> I'm on the road and using my laptop), I go on and look at the *next*
> pull (or one of the other pending ones).
> So by the time the build test has finished, the original pull request
> is already long gone - archived and done - and I have moved on.
> End result: answering the pull request is somewhat inconvenient to my
> flow, which is why I haven't done it.
> In contrast, this email is written "after the fact", just scripting
> "who did I pull for and then push out" by just looking at the git
> tree. Which sucks, because it means that I don't actually answer the
> original email at all, and thus lose any cc's for other people or
> mailing lists. That would literally be done better by simple
> So I've got a few options:
> - just don't do it
> - acking the pull request before it's validated and finalized.
> - starting the reply when doing the pull, leaving the email open in a
> separate window, going on to the next pull request, and then when
> build tests are done and I'll start the next one, finish off the old
> pending email.
> and obviously that first option is the easiest one. I'm not sure what
> Greg did, and during the later rc's it probably doesn't matter,
> because there likely simply aren't any overlapping operations.
> Because yes, the second option likely works fine in most cases, but my
> pull might not actually be final *if* something goes bad (where bad
> might be just "oops, my tests showed a semantic conflict, I'll need to
> fix up my merge" to "I'm going to have to look more closely at that
> warning" to "uhhuh, I'm going to just undo the pull entirely because
> it ended up being broken").
> The third option would work reliably, and not have the "oh, my pull is
> only tentatively done" issue. It just adds an annoying back-and-forth
> switch to my workflow.
> So I'm mainly pinging people I've already pulled to see how much
> people actually _care_. Yes, the ack is nice, but do people care
> enough that I should try to make that workflow change? Traditionally,
> you can see that I've pulled from just seeing the end result when it
> actually hits the public tree (which is yet another step removed from
> the steps above - I do build tests between every pull, but I generally
> tend to push out the end result in batches, usually a couple of times
> a day).
I have no strong opinions, in regards to the acks.
Your current approach, with no ack at all, just means that I have to
do "git remote update" a few times, which I probably would have done
anyways. So, to me, feel free to pick whatever option that makes the
life easiest for you.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-23 12:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-23 8:41 Linus Torvalds
2018-10-23 8:53 ` Linus Walleij
2018-10-23 9:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-10-23 9:35 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2018-10-23 9:45 ` Mark Brown
2018-10-23 9:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-10-23 20:04 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2018-10-25 14:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-10-26 17:36 ` Rob Herring
2018-10-26 21:15 ` Mark Brown
2018-11-01 10:18 ` Michael Ellerman
2018-11-07 10:41 ` Boris Brezillon
2018-11-07 23:56 ` Michael Ellerman
2018-10-31 14:27 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2018-10-31 18:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-10-23 9:02 ` Willy Tarreau
2018-10-23 9:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-10-23 9:23 ` Takashi Iwai
2018-10-23 9:15 ` Ingo Molnar
2018-10-23 9:17 ` Boris Brezillon
2018-10-23 9:47 ` Mark Brown
2018-10-23 9:19 ` Mark Brown
2018-10-23 9:25 ` Greg KH
2018-10-23 9:51 ` James Morris
2018-10-23 9:56 ` Jens Axboe
2018-10-23 12:13 ` Ulf Hansson [this message]
2018-10-23 20:41 ` Jacek Anaszewski
2018-10-23 20:01 ` Olof Johansson
2018-10-24 22:21 ` Kees Cook
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--subject='Re: Git pull ack emails..' \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).