linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@suse.de>
Cc: linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-ide <linux-ide@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Combined storage tree
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:58:07 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100913025807.GD411@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1284213316.2986.7.camel@mulgrave.site>

On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 08:55:16AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-09-11 at 18:20 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 01:27:27PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > One of the requests from LSF10 in August was the production of a
> > > combined storage tree.  This is now ready at
> > > 
> > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jejb/storage-tree
> > > 
> > > It's actually a nightly built merge tree consisting of
> > > 
> > > scsi-misc; scsi-rc-fixes
> > > libata#upstream-fixes, libata#upstream
> > > block#for-linus, block#for-next
> > > and the dm quilt (which is empty at the moment).
> > > 
> > > I haven't yet added vfs or any of the fs trees, but if necessary, I can.
> > > 
> > > Note, because it's built nightly, like linux-next, it's hard (but not
> > > impossible) to use it as a basis for git trees (it is much easier to use
> > > it as a basis for quilts).
> > 
> > Hmmm. I was kind of hoping for an upstream maintainer tree, kind of
> > like the netdev tree.  I really don't see a tree like this getting
> > wide use - if I enjoyed the pain of rebasing against throw-away
> > merge trees every day, then I'd already be using linux-next....
> 
> Well, to be honest, that's what people wanted when the issue was raised
> at LSF10.  However, unlike net, storage has never had a single
> maintainer, so it's a bit more political than just doing that by fiat,

Bah. Technical arguments win here, not politics. Besides, what
possible political concern can anyone have about using a different
upstream tree for development? A storage maintainer tree would not
replace anyone's little fiefdom; what we need is an integration point
long before stuff gets to Linus....

> plus not all of the current maintainers with storage trees were there.

If that's the barrier to discussion, then where else but a dedicated
storage workshop are you going to get a more representative sample
of storage developers in the same room?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

  reply	other threads:[~2010-09-13  2:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-09-10 18:27 Combined storage tree James Bottomley
2010-09-11  8:20 ` Dave Chinner
2010-09-11 13:55   ` James Bottomley
2010-09-13  2:58     ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2010-09-13 16:46       ` James Bottomley

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=20100913025807.GD411@dastard \
    --to=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@suse.de \
    --cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).