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 q9NCUboW045790 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:30:37 -0500 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 08:32:19 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: master branch fast-forwarded to v3.7-rc1, and corp-speak mumble Message-ID: <20121023123219.GH7341@infradead.org> References: <20121016155640.GA1377@sgi.com> <507F132B.30000@sandeen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <507F132B.30000@sandeen.net> 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: Eric Sandeen Cc: Ben Myers , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 03:20:59PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Dave had concerns that a regression, which, although quickly fixed, was > cited as the reason for missing a merge window. > > This concerns me too, because it's not just SGI's timetables that matter > here; others are also depending on this work getting upstream within certain > deadlines as well. > > Reading back through the list, I'm alarmed that SGI wants some unspecified > "soak time," but not upstream, for new work. There's no better place than > an -rc1 to get soak & exposure for tested patches. Bugs get found and fixed. > I don't think the XFS developer community needs a lecture on patch submission > processes and quality expectations. The best place is the for-next branch. We should aim for getting patches in early in the window rather than last minute, which is way to common in XFS land. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs