| 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 |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2/4] XFS: Use the inode tree for finding dirty inodes, Russell Cattelan |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 07/15] refactor xfs_btree_readahead, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 2/4] XFS: Use the inode tree for finding dirty inodes, Russell Cattelan |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 2/4] XFS: Use the inode tree for finding dirty inodes, Russell Cattelan |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |