[Top] [All Lists]

Re: New XFS git tree on oss.sgi.com

To: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: New XFS git tree on oss.sgi.com
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:00:09 +1100
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <492C9FB9.3090204@xxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <492BA7AD.5080007@xxxxxxx> <20081125081644.GA20644@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <492C9FB9.3090204@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:00:41PM +1100, Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 06:22:21PM +1100, Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
> >> There's a few branches there already:
> >>
> >> 'master'      This will contain all the latest xfs changes not yet pushed
> >>                to mainline.
> >> 'mainline'    This is vanilla mainline and will updated regularly.
> >> 'for-linus'   Our staging branch for pull requests
> >> 'xfs-dev'     This branch will contain KDB and other supporting code for
> >>                development and should be identical to the old CVS tree.
> >>
> >> Feel free to start using it and let us know if you have any issues.
> > 
> > Any chance to have these as separate git trees instead of branches?
> That was the original plan.  Not sure why that got changed.  If there is
> good reason for it we can change it.
> > 
> > In either case, do you expect patches against the xfs-dev or the master
> > tree?  It would also be useful if the trees and which one to be used
> > could be documented on oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs or xfs.org.
> We would prefer patches based on the master branch but patches can be
> against the mainline, master or xfs-dev branches. If a patch against
> mainline or xfs-dev doesn't apply cleanly to the master branch we may
> ask the author to rebase that patch against the master branch. If a
> patch to the master branch needs auxillary changes to files that only
> exist in the xfs-dev branch (ie xfsidbg stuff) we may ask for an
> additional patch from the author.

IIUC correctly, you are saying that we'll have to provide two
different versions of every patch set? i.e. one that applies to
the -master branch and potentially another that applies to the
-xfs-dev branch?

If so, this really means that if I write a patch for xfs-dev, I
can't just merge it to -master because the merge won't always apply
cleanly and I'll have to munge the patch set before I can commit the
changes. Hence if I have to change the xfs-dev version as a result
of reviews, I'll need to redo the merge to -master and all of the
required changes.

IOWs, to do this cleanly the -xfs-dev patches need to be exported
as patches and then imported into the -master branch so that it
is a separate set of commits. i.e. it needs rebasing. At that point,
the two branches may as well be separate trees - the point of
having branches is that commits can be merged between branches
without modification....


Dave Chinner

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