From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q8DHCAsP187948 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 12:12:10 -0500 Received: from mail.sandeen.net (sandeen.net [63.231.237.45]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 0qmDwb0w6GerQLHb for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 10:13:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5052142B.3010601@sandeen.net> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 12:13:15 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: userspace trees References: <20120913075026.GA27256@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20120913075026.GA27256@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 Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 9/13/12 2:50 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > It seems with the kernel.org account purge last year and me being way to > busy it seems like the -dev trees of the XFS userspace get very little > attention. What do people think about retiring them and using the oss > trees exclusively again for now? Right now the trees are getting a bit > out of sync which isn't a good thing. ISTR it was done in response to a .... fear of SGI being less responsive after a different type of account purge. ;) If SGI wants to be responsible for merging all userspace patches as they come in on the list, I'm fine with going back to one tree on oss. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs