[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120321220652.GJ8451@sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:06:52 -0500
From: Ben Myers <bpm@....com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] XFS update for 3.4-rc1
Hey Linus,
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 01:59:22PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Ben Myers <bpm@....com> wrote:
> >
> > Please pull from git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/xfs for-linus
>
> "Already up-to-date."
>
> I'd assume you forgot to push, but in fact all the things you quote
> there seem to have been in 3.3 already. So the whole pull request
> seems stale.
>
> Wazzup?
PEBKAC mostly.
xfs/master contains scalability improvements for dquots, log grant code
cleanups, plus bugfixes and cleanups large and small.
Unfortunately the stuff in: git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/xfs master
Conflicts with the stuff in: git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/xfs for-linus
I've resolved the conflict here: git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/xfs for-linus-merged
I would like to figure out how to
1) send important bugfixes upstream after rc1, and
2) not hold up development commits to xfs/master, while
3) avoiding conflicts like this.
Our old strategy was to hold off on development commits for awhile after
rc1, and I would like to avoid that. It occured to me that
fast-forwarding xfs/master immediately to an important bugfix once it
has been pulled in to your tree might accomplish this, but clearly I
didn't get that figured out.
Thanks,
Ben
--
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