From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dkim2.fusionio.com ([66.114.96.54]:52092 "EHLO dkim2.fusionio.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758613Ab3BTPjF (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:39:05 -0500 Received: from mx2.fusionio.com (unknown [10.101.1.160]) by dkim2.fusionio.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 196B09A0691 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:39:04 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:39:01 -0500 From: Chris Mason To: Alex Lyakas CC: Josef Bacik , "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: LAST CALL FOR BTRFS-NEXT Message-ID: <20130220153901.GB21291@shiny.masoncoding.com> References: <20130220142612.GA2062@localhost.localdomain> <20130220151227.GA27541@twin.jikos.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 08:35:30AM -0700, Alex Lyakas wrote: > Hi Josef, > can you please consider including these two patches from Jan 28: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2057051/ > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2057071/ > > I realize they have "V2" label, although the cover letter had "V3", > this was my bad. However, they both apply to what you have now in > btrfs-next. It's really ok if we add more after I pull in the current next, but I don't want to have to rebase the current next again. So, I'd rather that we focus on patches currently in -next and make sure they are the correct versions etc. -chris