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 (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o6SB6rHA246303 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:06:53 -0500 Received: from mail.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id ED9F04792DC for ; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 04:09:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.internode.on.net (bld-mail12.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.97]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id vhTpBBEvZL90bGIQ for ; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 04:09:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:09:54 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: XFS Master Branch Rebase Message-ID: <20100728110954.GG655@dastard> References: <1280247366.2002.111.camel@doink> <20100727232719.GR7362@dastard> <20100728084400.GA9516@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100728084400.GA9516@infradead.org> 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: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com, Alex Elder On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 04:44:00AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 09:27:19AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > Alex, this is a bit annoying. Rebases are a real pain for anyone > > downstream that is using git in non-trivial ways. > > FYI: I asked Alex to do it, so I'll happily take all the blaim here. No blame - just pointing out the consequences (again). > The real problem is that we had quite a merge mess before, which Linus > absolutely doesn't like. And if I traced it back correctly most of > it actually came from the xfsdev tree. If you call a single merge of 2.6.35-rc6 back into the for-2.6.36 branch a "merge mess", then I'm guilty as charged. However (and it is a *BIG* however), I haven't asked Alex to pull from that tree and upstream should not be pulling from downstream trees without a specific request to do so. I'm maintaining that whole tree for _my_ benefit - I need a mainline-based tree that also contains all the non-mainline XFS commits, and I need to be able to update them independently. Just because the tree contains a branch named "for-2.6.36" and has XFS commits that are not yet upstream doesn't mean the branch is a upstream pull target. Alex, if you want to pull from my tree rather that commit all the patches to the main XFS tree yourself, tell me so I can cherry-pick the commits into a clean, pristine branch and send a pull request. That way this whole problem just goes away... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs