From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E07777F52 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 05:47:47 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCD7E8F8052 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 03:47:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 7cg6JBH5yCwG6F8o for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 03:47:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 22:47:23 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [RFC] Handling of reviewed patch series Message-ID: <20131213114723.GM31386@dastard> References: <20131213053611.GQ10988@dastard> <20131213111959.GF23546@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131213111959.GF23546@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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 03:19:59AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > 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. I certainly wouldn't want to create topic branches for every standalone patch - that doesn't make any sense from a management overhead point of view. I'd keep a "miscellaneous" topic branch specifically for aggregating standalone and small fixes, and that keeps the number of topic branches under control. The way I see it from a developer POV is that after the topic branch is created you can check that it matches your local changes, then just ignore it. You continue to work from the for-next branch (which now includes your work from the topic branch), or continue to target the unchanging master branch or the for-next merge target branch, which would be the same as what you work from now. In the case that you have work that is dependent on a specific topic branch, we can add the work to the end of that topic branch rather than create a new one. Or if you have dependencies across everything, then you develop against for-next and we simply make that the last topic branch to be merged into for-next. i.e. as a developer, you really don't need to care that much about individual topic branches and how they are managed.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs