Re: [PATCH 2/4] XFS: Use the inode tree for finding dirty inodes

[Russell Cattelan <cattelan@thebarn.com>]

Mark Goodwin wrote:
>
>
> Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 03:27:33AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> ...
>>> I only fear
>>> we'll never get it in with the current review and commit latencies
>>> for XFS :(
>>
>> I can see this being a big issue in the not-too-distant future.....
>
> [getting off-topic for this thread, but anyway ..]
> This is already a big issue, obviously, and has been for some time.
>
> Internally, we're attempting to refine our patch acceptance processes,
> (e.g. gitify our internal dev tree and mirror it on oss so it's much
> easier to push back out to oss). 
I'm sure you have seen this before:
http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=cattelan/xfs-import/.git;a=summary'

That is a running mirror of the ptools tree into git. (via the cvs tree)

It would be really nice to move all xfs development to git finally shut down
the whole ptools -> cvs update process.

This would help facilitate creation of more "experimental" trees and/or 
branches
so there would not be such a long delay of getting patches distributed.




> But the QA overhead remains a stubborn
> problem. I think we're going to have to ask for QA tests (both regression
> and performance) to be written as part of the patch acceptance policy -
> under this policy, merely passing existing QA will not be sufficient.
> Comments?
>
> We have recently set up external access to a system for QA and
> regression testing for Christoph's use .. perhaps that should
> be a permanent offering?
>
> Cheers
> -- Mark
>