From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: linuxt-next: nfsd strange commit Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:55:29 -0400 Message-ID: <20081023025529.GA11477@fieldses.org> References: <20081021141357.ab15406f.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20081021132059.GA8029@fieldses.org> <20081023093004.b061d357.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail.fieldses.org ([66.93.2.214]:34487 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751822AbYJWCzd (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:55:33 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081023093004.b061d357.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 09:30:04AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Bruce, > > On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:20:59 -0400 "J. Bruce Fields" wrote: > > > > I've also been acting as a (somewhat inconsistent) locks.c maintainer. > > > > Would it make it any easier if I kept a locks-next branch that you could > > pull separately? Or should I try to get that stuff into some other > > tree? > > A separate branch is possible, but if it is only one or two commits it is > hardly worth it. Lets see how it goes. OK. > However (I don't mean to pick on you, really :-)) your current tree has a > merge that says "Merge branch 'for-2.6.29' into for-mm". I (and Andrew) > really don't want any 2.6.29 stuff in linux-next until after 2.6.28-rc1 - > it just muddies the conflicts. So can you remove that merge for now (its > only a few days) and I will revert that merge in linux-next today. Whoops. OK, hopefully the current nfsd-next is more to your liking.... --b.