From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD0A029DF8 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 05:20:14 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD4F7304059 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 03:20:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id V9kBGfNO4dDJsowX (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 03:20:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 03:19:59 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [RFC] Handling of reviewed patch series Message-ID: <20131213111959.GF23546@infradead.org> References: <20131213053611.GQ10988@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131213053611.GQ10988@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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com I'm a big fan of the for-next vs for-linux split for next release work vs bugfixes which we've not applied yet. The whole topic branches scheme makes sense for large changes like the crc work, but seems utterly confusing if applied to every little change, as now the amount of branches you can conflict againt multiplies. I'm defintively in favour of a model that has less active branches. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs