[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20091203123111.eef5a398.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 12:31:11 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Sage Weil <sage@...dream.net>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
yehuda@...dream.net
Subject: Re: ceph code review
On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 12:27:23 -0800 (PST)
Sage Weil <sage@...dream.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > The code looks reasonable to me. Unless others emit convincing
> > squeaks, please ask Stephen to include your git tree into linux-next
> > sometime within the next month, then send Linus a pull request for
> > 2.6.33.
>
> The code has seen 70 odd patches since then. Mostly small fixes and
> cleanups, and a handful of larger changes. Should these see the light of
> LKML before I send a pull request of Linus? (So far they've just gone out
> to the ceph commit list.) I don't want to spam everyone with a huge series
> fixing up as yet unmerged code, but I'm not sure that review on the ceph
> lists is sufficient, given the frequency with which I see fs series on
> LKML...
>
> What are the best practices here?
>
My preference would be to fold all the little fixes back into the main
patch series then reissue it all as a nice patchset for people to
re-review.
But that practice has largely gone by the wayside in recent years
because of git-enforced restrictions :(. It might muck up your
development history to an unacceptable-to-you extent also, dunno.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists