From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com>
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28])
	by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m71J1TRn016095
	for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 12:01:31 -0700
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:02:40 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] XFS update for 2.6.27
Message-ID: <20080801190240.GA23604@infradead.org>
References: <20080731025328.6328358C4C3F@chook.melbourne.sgi.com> <20080731034952.GC13395@disturbed>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20080731034952.GC13395@disturbed>
Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com
List-Id: xfs
To: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@sgi.com>, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 01:49:52PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> author of that patch. I don't know why there's duplicates of it
> in the tree - the only thing I can see is that the committer's
> email address is not stable. There is a growing number of
> duplicate commits like this in the XFS tree.....

Yes, I pointed this out before.  But at this point I'd rather have
the XFS changes in .27 and not completely miss the window even if
that means some patches are not correctly atributed to me.