All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] XFS update for 3.4-rc1
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:06:52 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120321220652.GJ8451@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFyz5UWiJeeMbwZUZEscisZY5Jb0nADpJP6jWKwf3Uai1A@mail.gmail.com>

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@sgi.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

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] XFS update for 3.4-rc1
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:06:52 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120321220652.GJ8451@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFyz5UWiJeeMbwZUZEscisZY5Jb0nADpJP6jWKwf3Uai1A@mail.gmail.com>

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@sgi.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


  reply	other threads:[~2012-03-21 22:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-03-21 18:36 [GIT PULL] XFS update for 3.4-rc1 Ben Myers
2012-03-21 18:36 ` Ben Myers
2012-03-21 20:26 ` Ben Myers
2012-03-21 20:26   ` Ben Myers
2012-03-21 20:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-03-21 20:59   ` Linus Torvalds
2012-03-21 22:06   ` Ben Myers [this message]
2012-03-21 22:06     ` Ben Myers
2012-03-21 22:59     ` Linus Torvalds
2012-03-21 22:59       ` Linus Torvalds
2012-03-22 15:56       ` Ben Myers
2012-03-22 15:56         ` Ben Myers

Reply instructions:

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:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20120321220652.GJ8451@sgi.com \
    --to=bpm@sgi.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.