From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: ceph code review
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 12:31:11 -0800
Message-ID: <20091203123111.eef5a398.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
References: <1253641129-28434-1-git-send-email-sage@newdream.net>
	<1253641129-28434-2-git-send-email-sage@newdream.net>
	<1253641129-28434-3-git-send-email-sage@newdream.net>
	<1253641129-28434-4-git-send-email-sage@newdream.net>
	<1253641129-28434-5-git-send-email-sage@newdream.net>
	<1253641129-28434-6-git-send-email-sage@newdream.net>
	<1253641129-28434-7-git-send-email-sage@newdream.net>
	<20090929171511.29836c82.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0912011648590.5806@cobra.newdream.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	yehuda@newdream.net
To: Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner+glk-linux-kernel-3=40m.gmane.org-S1754944AbZLCUbK@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0912011648590.5806@cobra.newdream.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 12:27:23 -0800 (PST)
Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > The code looks reasonable to me.  Unless others emit convincing
> > squeaks, please ask Stephen to include your git tree into linux-next
> > sometime within the next month, then send Linus a pull request for
> > 2.6.33.
> 
> The code has seen 70 odd patches since then.  Mostly small fixes and 
> cleanups, and a handful of larger changes.  Should these see the light of 
> LKML before I send a pull request of Linus?  (So far they've just gone out 
> to the ceph commit list.) I don't want to spam everyone with a huge series 
> fixing up as yet unmerged code, but I'm not sure that review on the ceph 
> lists is sufficient, given the frequency with which I see fs series on 
> LKML...
> 
> What are the best practices here?
> 

My preference would be to fold all the little fixes back into the main
patch series then reissue it all as a nice patchset for people to
re-review.

But that practice has largely gone by the wayside in recent years
because of git-enforced restrictions :(.  It might muck up your
development history to an unacceptable-to-you extent also, dunno.