From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Pull request for FS-Cache, including NFS patches Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:36:01 -0800 Message-ID: <20081218123601.11810b7f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <8930.1229560221@redhat.com> <20081218224418.804f10bc.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20081218142420.GA16728@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org, steved@redhat.com, dhowells@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, rwheeler@redhat.com To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20081218142420.GA16728@infradead.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfsv4-bounces@linux-nfs.org Errors-To: nfsv4-bounces@linux-nfs.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:24:20 -0500 Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:44:18PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Added from today. > > > > Usual spiel: all patches in that branch must have been > > posted to a relevant mailing list > > reviewed > > unit tested > > destined for the next merge window (or the current release) > > *before* they are included. > > I don't think we want fscache for .29 yet. I'd rather let the > credential code settle for one release, and have more time for actually > reviewing it properly and have it 100% ready for .30. > I don't believe that it has yet been convincingly demonstrated that we want to merge it at all. It's a huuuuuuuuge lump of new code, so it really needs to provide decent value. Can we revisit this? Yet again? What do we get from all this?