[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS Master Branch Rebase

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS Master Branch Rebase
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:09:54 +1000
Cc: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20100728084400.GA9516@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1280247366.2002.111.camel@doink> <20100727232719.GR7362@dastard> <20100728084400.GA9516@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 04:44:00AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 09:27:19AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > Alex, this is a bit annoying. Rebases are a real pain for anyone
> > downstream that is using git in non-trivial ways.
> FYI: I asked Alex to do it, so I'll happily take all the blaim here.

No blame - just pointing out the consequences (again).

> The real problem is that we had quite a merge mess before, which Linus
> absolutely doesn't like.  And if I traced it back correctly most of
> it actually came from the xfsdev tree.

If you call a single merge of 2.6.35-rc6 back into the for-2.6.36
branch a "merge mess", then I'm guilty as charged.  However (and it
is a *BIG* however), I haven't asked Alex to pull from that tree
and upstream should not be pulling from downstream trees without a
specific request to do so.

I'm maintaining that whole tree for _my_ benefit - I need a
mainline-based tree that also contains all the non-mainline XFS
commits, and I need to be able to update them independently.  Just
because the tree contains a branch named "for-2.6.36" and has XFS
commits that are not yet upstream doesn't mean the branch is a
upstream pull target.

Alex, if you want to pull from my tree rather that commit all the
patches to the main XFS tree yourself, tell me so I can cherry-pick
the commits into a clean, pristine branch and send a pull request.
That way this whole problem just goes away...


Dave Chinner

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