From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q8DKBxoF212017 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:11:59 -0500 Received: from mail.sandeen.net (sandeen.net [63.231.237.45]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id jRmefg6m2dVMcC9n for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:13:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <50523E50.6020105@sandeen.net> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:13:04 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: userspace trees References: <20120913075026.GA27256@infradead.org> <5052142B.3010601@sandeen.net> <20120913175316.GR3274@sgi.com> <50521DCE.7020203@sandeen.net> <20120913201029.GZ25175@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20120913201029.GZ25175@sgi.com> 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: Ben Myers Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On 9/13/12 3:10 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > Hey Eric & Christoph, > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:54:22PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 9/13/12 12:53 PM, Ben Myers wrote: >>> Hi Eric, >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:13:15PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> I discussed this with management. SGI is willing to take on the responsibility >>> of merging all userspace patches. >>> >>> I think retiring the -dev trees will resolve the out-of-sync issues we've been >>> having, and be less confusing for all involved. >> >> Sounds like a plan. Will you make sure everything gets re-synced from kernel.org >> so nothing is lost? > > ~/dmapi$ git pull korg master > From git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/dmapi-dev > * branch master -> FETCH_HEAD > Already up-to-date. > > ~/xfsdump$ git pull korg master > From git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfsdump-dev > * branch master -> FETCH_HEAD > Already up-to-date. > > ~/xfsprogs$ git pull kernel.org master > From git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfsprogs-dev > * branch master -> FETCH_HEAD > Updating a8decaf..7db1e7b > Fast-forward > db/bmap.c | 4 ++-- > db/btblock.c | 11 ----------- > mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c | 15 +++++++++------ > repair/bmap.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > repair/dir2.c | 6 +++++- > 5 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) > > I've brought xfsprogs master branch uptodate here > git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/cmds/xfsprogs.git > > ~/xfstests # git pull korg master > From git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev > * branch master -> FETCH_HEAD > Auto-merging group > CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in group > Auto-merging 285.out > CONFLICT (add/add): Merge conflict in 285.out > Auto-merging 285 > CONFLICT (add/add): Merge conflict in 285 > Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result. > > I've merged and brought xfstests master branch uptodate here > git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/cmds/xfstests.git > > Did I miss anything? Any other branches to copy over? I've not done anything except with the master branch. -Eric > Thanks, > Ben > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs