xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] XFS: Use the inode tree for finding dirty inodes
From: Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:08:01 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <48894ECC.1070609@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: SGI Engineering
References: <1216556394-17529-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1216556394-17529-3-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080722042829.GB27123@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080722053019.GI6761@disturbed> <20080722072733.GA15376@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080723000548.GG5947@disturbed> <488692FB.1010101@xxxxxxx> <48875040.9090400@xxxxxxxxxxx> <48881B02.20900@xxxxxxx> <48894ECC.1070609@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: markgw@xxxxxxx
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)


Russell Cattelan wrote:
Personally I don't see a reason to keep a ptools tree in lock step with
with a git tree. ...

you might not, but you're not working for SGI anymore :)
We have loads of other trees to merge stuff into other than
those on oss. Many of the internal scripts for managing this
are very intertwined with ptools. The one thing that will
really help with handling externally contributed patches is
for the primary internal SGI dev tree to become GIT based.
But not having git->ptools auto merge is not an option.

PCP is in the same boat, just ask Nathan :)

Looking at this next week ...

Cheers
-- Mark


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>