From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3627020248 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 10:52:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726284AbfCLKwC (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:52:02 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:47032 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1725894AbfCLKwB (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:52:01 -0400 Received: (qmail 25639 invoked by uid 109); 12 Mar 2019 10:52:01 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 10:52:01 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 31456 invoked by uid 111); 12 Mar 2019 10:52:20 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) SMTP; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:52:20 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:51:59 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:51:59 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Thomas Braun , Duy Nguyen , Jeffrey Walton , Todd Zullinger , Git List Subject: Re: disabling sha1dc unaligned access, was Re: One failed self test on Fedora 29 Message-ID: <20190312105159.GB2023@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20190308174343.GX31362@zaya.teonanacatl.net> <20190311033755.GB7087@sigill.intra.peff.net> <8cf2fa6c-d742-a2a6-cde7-66cef87b04e8@virtuell-zuhause.de> <20190311182328.GB16865@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 04:27:57PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > The problem to me is not that the steps that a developer has to do, but > > rather that we are dependent on the upstream project to make a simple > > fix (which they may not agree to do, or may take a long time to do). > > Yeah. In practice, I think the recommended way to work for a > depending project like us is to keep a fork in a separate repository > we control of the submodule project, and allow our fork to be > slightly ahead of the upstream while feeding our change to them. Reading Thomas's email again, that might actually have been what he was recommending. If so, sorry for the confusion. And I agree that's a valid solution. That said, I do wonder at some point if there's a huge value in using a submodule at that point. I think there is if the dependent project is large (and if it's optional, and some people might not need it). But in this case, it is not a big deal to just carry the sha1dc code in-tree. -Peff