From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id mBMMGjV3003245 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:16:46 -0600 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 7783D41012 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:16:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id alsUgyt2gUzgMatt for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:16:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:16:13 -0500 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/20] xfs-cmds staging tree Message-ID: <20081222221613.GA7128@infradead.org> References: <20081222163831.755809000@bombadil.infradead.org> <494FF9B3.9030103@sgi.com> <20081222204956.GA23453@infradead.org> <495010A2.2030903@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <495010A2.2030903@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: Mark Goodwin Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 09:11:46AM +1100, Mark Goodwin wrote: > I unsure, but don't think a group writable repository would work too well. > Nathan doesn't push directly into the official pcp git tree (which is at > git://oss/pcp/pcp.git) but rather pushes to his own git tree (which is > at git://oss/nathans/pcp.git). SGI review and pull those commits and push > them into the official tree (via an internal staging tree using a hook > for the ptools back-end, but that's transparent to oss users). Nathan also > reviews patches from others and pulls their patches into his tree, and > regularly re-syncs with the official tree. git works it all out just fine. > > This is fairly new, but seems to work rather well since it supports > effective collaboration for trusted contributors without SGI becoming > a patch acceptance bottleneck - sort of a multiple maintainership. I've set up a kernel.org hierachy where can have group commits. We can try for a while to have sgi pull from it. >> One thing we were discussing is if it's really a good idea to have all >> these together. > > It would certainly help SGI if the directory structure for the proposed > xfs-cmds tree remained the same as it is in ptools at the moment. I > guess we could consider splitting each xfs-cmds directory into separate > repositories, but then building it all togetheer would be a pain. It could > certainly make sense to split off xfstests into it's own tree since it's > not part of the xfs-cmds build. Ok, sounds fair to keep it like that for now. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs