From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id mAQ2NX6Y029075 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:23:33 -0600 Received: from ipmail01.adl6.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id DB6C115F9B76 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:23:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail01.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail01.adl6.internode.on.net [203.16.214.146]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id UEpQ9Y72VOYXu2BE for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:23:31 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:00:09 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: New XFS git tree on oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20081126020009.GF6291@disturbed> References: <492BA7AD.5080007@sgi.com> <20081125081644.GA20644@infradead.org> <492C9FB9.3090204@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <492C9FB9.3090204@sgi.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Lachlan McIlroy Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:00:41PM +1100, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: > Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 06:22:21PM +1100, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: > >> There's a few branches there already: > >> > >> 'master' This will contain all the latest xfs changes not yet pushed > >> to mainline. > >> 'mainline' This is vanilla mainline and will updated regularly. > >> 'for-linus' Our staging branch for pull requests > >> 'xfs-dev' This branch will contain KDB and other supporting code for > >> development and should be identical to the old CVS tree. > >> > >> Feel free to start using it and let us know if you have any issues. > > > > Any chance to have these as separate git trees instead of branches? > That was the original plan. Not sure why that got changed. If there is > good reason for it we can change it. > > > > > In either case, do you expect patches against the xfs-dev or the master > > tree? It would also be useful if the trees and which one to be used > > could be documented on oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs or xfs.org. > We would prefer patches based on the master branch but patches can be > against the mainline, master or xfs-dev branches. If a patch against > mainline or xfs-dev doesn't apply cleanly to the master branch we may > ask the author to rebase that patch against the master branch. If a > patch to the master branch needs auxillary changes to files that only > exist in the xfs-dev branch (ie xfsidbg stuff) we may ask for an > additional patch from the author. IIUC correctly, you are saying that we'll have to provide two different versions of every patch set? i.e. one that applies to the -master branch and potentially another that applies to the -xfs-dev branch? If so, this really means that if I write a patch for xfs-dev, I can't just merge it to -master because the merge won't always apply cleanly and I'll have to munge the patch set before I can commit the changes. Hence if I have to change the xfs-dev version as a result of reviews, I'll need to redo the merge to -master and all of the required changes. IOWs, to do this cleanly the -xfs-dev patches need to be exported as patches and then imported into the -master branch so that it is a separate set of commits. i.e. it needs rebasing. At that point, the two branches may as well be separate trees - the point of having branches is that commits can be merged between branches without modification.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs