From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n33HE3Uj226187 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 12:14:13 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 6D1731EA55D for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:13:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [140.211.169.13]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id B3PS6G39mIeMq0hD for ; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:13:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:02:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] XFS update for 2.6.30 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20090331053013.7642414167108@attica.americas.sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 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: Felix Blyakher , Lachlan McIlroy Cc: Andrew Morton , LKML , xfs mailing list On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Felix Blyakher wrote: > > > > Were there any problems pulling from the xfs repository? > > Sorry, no - just too much email, too many trees to look at, too many > people to argue with. > > Pulled. Side note - I almost unpulled afterwards. You've done several apparently totally useless pulls from my tree at random points. Daily "keep up-to-date with Linus' tree" pulls are _strongly_ discouraged (read: if this continues, I'll just stop pulling from you), because it makes the history totally unreadable after-the-fact. It has some direct technical downsides (it makes it much harder to run "git bisect" and see what is going on), but apart from those direct downsides it just makes it much harder for me - or anybody else who wants to get an overview of what happened - to visualize things when history is messy. Instead of having a clear nice line of development that says "this is what happened to XFS", those merges have basically mixed up all your changes with all the random _other_ changes in the tree. In other words, having those extra merges makes the graphical tools almost useless for getting some kind of "what happened" overview. I realize that an occasional back-merge may be required to resolve big conflicts early, but they really have to be pretty big and immediate for it to be a win. Linus _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs