From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:48:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id l8D0mA4p020652 for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:48:13 -0700 Message-ID: <46E88974.2040809@sgi.com> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:51:00 +1000 From: Lachlan McIlroy MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: state of the cvs tree References: <20070912121938.GA16870@lst.de> <46E870AB.30906@sgi.com> <20070913001025.GR995458@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20070913001025.GR995458@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: David Chinner Cc: Mark Goodwin , Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com David Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 09:05:15AM +1000, Mark Goodwin wrote: >> >> Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> looks like the cvs tree is broken currently - fs/xfs/ is merged up to >>> 2.6.23-rc, but everything else is still at 2.6.22-rc state leading to >>> various compile failures. >> I think Tim is in the middle of the .23 update and still has some more >> to push in. Tim? >> >> What else do you (or anyone for that matter) have in the pipeline for XFS? >> Whilst we're taking huge patches and cleanups, let's get them all in asap. > > Let's plan this a little better than "ASAP". We've already got a > full queue for .24 - I'm uncomfortable with pushing anything more > given the nature of the changes we've made in this cycle and we > really want some testing time on that code before the .24 merge > window opens. Given that we are at .23-rc6 already, it won't be long > before .24-rc1 merge window is open, so lets stop pushing large > changes into the tree until after the .24-rc1 merge is done. > > IOWs, I consider stuff like Eric's spin lock clean to be .25 material > at this point, not .24, and we should only be taking bug fixes and small, > contained features (e.g. fallocate support) for .24. Everything else > can wait until .25.... > > Thoughts? > Sounds fair to me, Dave.