* userspace trees @ 2012-09-13 7:50 Christoph Hellwig 2012-09-13 14:22 ` Carlos Maiolino 2012-09-13 17:13 ` Eric Sandeen 0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2012-09-13 7:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xfs It seems with the kernel.org account purge last year and me being way to busy it seems like the -dev trees of the XFS userspace get very little attention. What do people think about retiring them and using the oss trees exclusively again for now? Right now the trees are getting a bit out of sync which isn't a good thing. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: userspace trees 2012-09-13 7:50 userspace trees Christoph Hellwig @ 2012-09-13 14:22 ` Carlos Maiolino 2012-09-13 17:13 ` Eric Sandeen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Carlos Maiolino @ 2012-09-13 14:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xfs On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 03:50:26AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > It seems with the kernel.org account purge last year and me being way to > busy it seems like the -dev trees of the XFS userspace get very little > attention. What do people think about retiring them and using the oss > trees exclusively again for now? Right now the trees are getting a bit > out of sync which isn't a good thing. > Maintaining oss only looks easier to me and less error prone (in regards on keep trees synchronized) than still keep the kernel.org xfs tree. To be honest I've never used the kernel.org xfs trees, so, at least for me this makes sense. -- --Carlos _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: userspace trees 2012-09-13 7:50 userspace trees Christoph Hellwig 2012-09-13 14:22 ` Carlos Maiolino @ 2012-09-13 17:13 ` Eric Sandeen 2012-09-13 17:53 ` Ben Myers 1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Eric Sandeen @ 2012-09-13 17:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Hellwig; +Cc: xfs On 9/13/12 2:50 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > It seems with the kernel.org account purge last year and me being way to > busy it seems like the -dev trees of the XFS userspace get very little > attention. What do people think about retiring them and using the oss > trees exclusively again for now? Right now the trees are getting a bit > out of sync which isn't a good thing. ISTR it was done in response to a .... fear of SGI being less responsive after a different type of account purge. ;) If SGI wants to be responsible for merging all userspace patches as they come in on the list, I'm fine with going back to one tree on oss. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: userspace trees 2012-09-13 17:13 ` Eric Sandeen @ 2012-09-13 17:53 ` Ben Myers 2012-09-13 17:54 ` Eric Sandeen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Ben Myers @ 2012-09-13 17:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: Christoph Hellwig, xfs Hi Eric, On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:13:15PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 9/13/12 2:50 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > It seems with the kernel.org account purge last year and me being way to > > busy it seems like the -dev trees of the XFS userspace get very little > > attention. What do people think about retiring them and using the oss > > trees exclusively again for now? Right now the trees are getting a bit > > out of sync which isn't a good thing. > > ISTR it was done in response to a .... fear of SGI being less responsive after > a different type of account purge. ;) > > If SGI wants to be responsible for merging all userspace patches as they > come in on the list, I'm fine with going back to one tree on oss. I discussed this with management. SGI is willing to take on the responsibility of merging all userspace patches. I think retiring the -dev trees will resolve the out-of-sync issues we've been having, and be less confusing for all involved. Regards, Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: userspace trees 2012-09-13 17:53 ` Ben Myers @ 2012-09-13 17:54 ` Eric Sandeen 2012-09-13 20:10 ` Ben Myers 2012-09-25 9:29 ` Christoph Hellwig 0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Eric Sandeen @ 2012-09-13 17:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ben Myers; +Cc: Christoph Hellwig, xfs On 9/13/12 12:53 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > Hi Eric, > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:13:15PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 9/13/12 2:50 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> It seems with the kernel.org account purge last year and me being way to >>> busy it seems like the -dev trees of the XFS userspace get very little >>> attention. What do people think about retiring them and using the oss >>> trees exclusively again for now? Right now the trees are getting a bit >>> out of sync which isn't a good thing. >> >> ISTR it was done in response to a .... fear of SGI being less responsive after >> a different type of account purge. ;) >> >> If SGI wants to be responsible for merging all userspace patches as they >> come in on the list, I'm fine with going back to one tree on oss. > > I discussed this with management. SGI is willing to take on the responsibility > of merging all userspace patches. > > I think retiring the -dev trees will resolve the out-of-sync issues we've been > having, and be less confusing for all involved. Sounds like a plan. Will you make sure everything gets re-synced from kernel.org so nothing is lost? hch, you want to remove or somehow deprecate the kernel.org trees? Thanks, -Eric > Regards, > Ben > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: userspace trees 2012-09-13 17:54 ` Eric Sandeen @ 2012-09-13 20:10 ` Ben Myers 2012-09-13 20:13 ` Eric Sandeen 2012-09-25 9:29 ` Christoph Hellwig 1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Ben Myers @ 2012-09-13 20:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: Christoph Hellwig, xfs Hey Eric & Christoph, On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:54:22PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 9/13/12 12:53 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > > Hi Eric, > > > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:13:15PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >> On 9/13/12 2:50 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >>> It seems with the kernel.org account purge last year and me being way to > >>> busy it seems like the -dev trees of the XFS userspace get very little > >>> attention. What do people think about retiring them and using the oss > >>> trees exclusively again for now? Right now the trees are getting a bit > >>> out of sync which isn't a good thing. > >> > >> ISTR it was done in response to a .... fear of SGI being less responsive after > >> a different type of account purge. ;) > >> > >> If SGI wants to be responsible for merging all userspace patches as they > >> come in on the list, I'm fine with going back to one tree on oss. > > > > I discussed this with management. SGI is willing to take on the responsibility > > of merging all userspace patches. > > > > I think retiring the -dev trees will resolve the out-of-sync issues we've been > > having, and be less confusing for all involved. > > Sounds like a plan. Will you make sure everything gets re-synced from kernel.org > so nothing is lost? ~/dmapi$ git pull korg master >From git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/dmapi-dev * branch master -> FETCH_HEAD Already up-to-date. ~/xfsdump$ git pull korg master >From git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfsdump-dev * branch master -> FETCH_HEAD Already up-to-date. ~/xfsprogs$ git pull kernel.org master >From git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfsprogs-dev * branch master -> FETCH_HEAD Updating a8decaf..7db1e7b Fast-forward db/bmap.c | 4 ++-- db/btblock.c | 11 ----------- mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c | 15 +++++++++------ repair/bmap.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---- repair/dir2.c | 6 +++++- 5 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) I've brought xfsprogs master branch uptodate here git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/cmds/xfsprogs.git ~/xfstests # git pull korg master >From git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev * branch master -> FETCH_HEAD Auto-merging group CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in group Auto-merging 285.out CONFLICT (add/add): Merge conflict in 285.out Auto-merging 285 CONFLICT (add/add): Merge conflict in 285 Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result. I've merged and brought xfstests master branch uptodate here git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/cmds/xfstests.git Did I miss anything? Any other branches to copy over? Thanks, Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: userspace trees 2012-09-13 20:10 ` Ben Myers @ 2012-09-13 20:13 ` Eric Sandeen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Eric Sandeen @ 2012-09-13 20:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ben Myers; +Cc: Christoph Hellwig, xfs On 9/13/12 3:10 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > Hey Eric & Christoph, > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:54:22PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 9/13/12 12:53 PM, Ben Myers wrote: >>> Hi Eric, >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:13:15PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>> On 9/13/12 2:50 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>>>> It seems with the kernel.org account purge last year and me being way to >>>>> busy it seems like the -dev trees of the XFS userspace get very little >>>>> attention. What do people think about retiring them and using the oss >>>>> trees exclusively again for now? Right now the trees are getting a bit >>>>> out of sync which isn't a good thing. >>>> >>>> ISTR it was done in response to a .... fear of SGI being less responsive after >>>> a different type of account purge. ;) >>>> >>>> If SGI wants to be responsible for merging all userspace patches as they >>>> come in on the list, I'm fine with going back to one tree on oss. >>> >>> I discussed this with management. SGI is willing to take on the responsibility >>> of merging all userspace patches. >>> >>> I think retiring the -dev trees will resolve the out-of-sync issues we've been >>> having, and be less confusing for all involved. >> >> Sounds like a plan. Will you make sure everything gets re-synced from kernel.org >> so nothing is lost? > > ~/dmapi$ git pull korg master > From git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/dmapi-dev > * branch master -> FETCH_HEAD > Already up-to-date. > > ~/xfsdump$ git pull korg master > From git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfsdump-dev > * branch master -> FETCH_HEAD > Already up-to-date. > > ~/xfsprogs$ git pull kernel.org master > From git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfsprogs-dev > * branch master -> FETCH_HEAD > Updating a8decaf..7db1e7b > Fast-forward > db/bmap.c | 4 ++-- > db/btblock.c | 11 ----------- > mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c | 15 +++++++++------ > repair/bmap.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > repair/dir2.c | 6 +++++- > 5 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) > > I've brought xfsprogs master branch uptodate here > git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/cmds/xfsprogs.git > > ~/xfstests # git pull korg master > From git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev > * branch master -> FETCH_HEAD > Auto-merging group > CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in group > Auto-merging 285.out > CONFLICT (add/add): Merge conflict in 285.out > Auto-merging 285 > CONFLICT (add/add): Merge conflict in 285 > Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result. > > I've merged and brought xfstests master branch uptodate here > git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/cmds/xfstests.git > > Did I miss anything? Any other branches to copy over? I've not done anything except with the master branch. -Eric > Thanks, > Ben > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: userspace trees 2012-09-13 17:54 ` Eric Sandeen 2012-09-13 20:10 ` Ben Myers @ 2012-09-25 9:29 ` Christoph Hellwig 1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2012-09-25 9:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: Christoph Hellwig, Ben Myers, xfs On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:54:22PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > hch, you want to remove or somehow deprecate the kernel.org trees? I'll replace them with a Checkin that just has a file mentioning that the trees have moved. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-09-25 9:28 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2012-09-13 7:50 userspace trees Christoph Hellwig 2012-09-13 14:22 ` Carlos Maiolino 2012-09-13 17:13 ` Eric Sandeen 2012-09-13 17:53 ` Ben Myers 2012-09-13 17:54 ` Eric Sandeen 2012-09-13 20:10 ` Ben Myers 2012-09-13 20:13 ` Eric Sandeen 2012-09-25 9:29 ` Christoph Hellwig
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.