xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: New XFS git tree on oss.sgi.com
From: Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:29:11 +1100
Cc: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20081126020009.GF6291@disturbed>
References: <492BA7AD.5080007@xxxxxxx> <20081125081644.GA20644@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <492C9FB9.3090204@xxxxxxx> <20081126020009.GF6291@disturbed>
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914)
Dave Chinner wrote:
> 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?
> 
No, that's not how I was envisaging this.
If you are not interested in modifying xfsidbg.c or dmapi
then I'd expect you to only send patches against the master branch.
If you are interested in also updating xfsidbg.c or dmapi
then I'd expect you to send patches against xfs-dev.
I was expecting the xfs-team when they pull in or git-am the
patches to update the other branch accordingly.

--Tim

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