Re: [ANNOUNCE, DISCUSS] xfsprogs: libxfs-4.1-update branch created

[Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>]

On 5/11/15 7:39 AM, Brian Foster wrote:

...

> What's the proposition with regard to submission/review process? I don't
> think we necessarily need the userspace bits until there is some review
> feedback on the kernel bits because that just increases development and
> review overhead (though nothing precludes posting both, of course). Also
> (and I think we discussed this briefly at LSF), I assume it is
> reasonable to condense a kernel patch series to a single userspace "sync
> XYZ feature to xfsprogs" patch for the bits that port directly over,
> since we have the kernel git log for finer grained history..? Case in
> point: I could squash the sparse inode kernel patches into a single
> xfsprogs patch. The functional xfsprogs bits on top of that (e.g., mkfs,
> repair, etc.) would of course remain as independent patches that require
> indepenent review.

I'd prefer fine-grained, myself; that way, going forward, we can have a
more or less 1:1 commit history.  With libxfs in userspace up to date,
it should be pretty easy, if not even scriptable, and I think the minimal
extra time needed to keep the fine-grained history around would be useful.

-Eric

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs