From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o6SBGgcC246816 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:16:42 -0500 Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 07:19:46 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: XFS Master Branch Rebase Message-ID: <20100728111946.GA10824@infradead.org> References: <1280247366.2002.111.camel@doink> <20100727232719.GR7362@dastard> <20100728084400.GA9516@infradead.org> <20100728110954.GG655@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100728110954.GG655@dastard> 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: Dave Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com, Alex Elder On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 09:09:54PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > 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), It wasn't that simple. We had a few unclean merges from mainline and from for-linux to for-2.6.36 or similar branches. > 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. Yeah. The normal way to maintain a development branch is to stay is to never pull in mainline into an existing branch. If we absolutely need to update to a newer version from Linus' tree it should be rebased ontop of it. Unfortunately we'll need to do this once in a while for something like XFS which has rather complex interactions with core VM and VFS changes, so expecting the xfs development branch to be a stable target is not generally a good idea. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs