[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [GIT PULL] XFS update for 3.4-rc1

To: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] XFS update for 3.4-rc1
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:59:49 -0700
Cc: akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=TnTE91nyYZJBhuVEwt5VCWjql9xJHx0MkGdwMkCBW6g=; b=NriAsM+yDHAD7pINkD5EAAOSNT3JV5U0Ak4fsoD1RMXEps0TbUJhMA4bJMLXnGBRDl B5NpitKSP/MB4WGvBjBV4IbYzg17OAEr1Q5L9stTEHbHSBsrxuYkjvj3jRt2xtg/DFWL TJeCkMQpP/HGdkS0ArGwT0NvzQ0C0jQXKwov8988QpwxzoW8Mzd88OI5tlBno1FPnC5h WET6AR8vhLkIt4VclTei1I1rV91mPxOX+OPJ2/tT+1PkrIOKRL0ERa42hliFpTEmPJjw t8ukzUf6x14p2jCl+YjoYlVrMmXbnuc18GJx/GKsgMt8j6xumx/h8YZbM2tStL/vduC0 YlGg==
In-reply-to: <20120321220652.GJ8451@xxxxxxx>
References: <20120321183613.2C93F426DA7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CA+55aFyz5UWiJeeMbwZUZEscisZY5Jb0nADpJP6jWKwf3Uai1A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120321220652.GJ8451@xxxxxxx>
Sender: linus971@xxxxxxxxx
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> xfs/master contains scalability improvements for dquots, log grant code
> cleanups, plus bugfixes and cleanups large and small.

Shortlog and diffstat?

> Unfortunately the stuff in:  git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/xfs master
> Conflicts with the stuff in:  git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/xfs for-linus

There's still nothng in 'for-linus'.

> I've resolved the conflict here:  git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/xfs for-linus-merged

I actually prefer to merge things myself to see what is up, especially
since everybody else writes horrible merge messages (but also because
I simply want to know what the conflicts are). I appreciate more
complex pull requests that *also* have a "pre-merged" branch just in
case (I tend to use that for verification if there was anything even
remotely questionable going on), but I really do not generally want

I'm used to resolving conflicts. I'm so used to it, in fact, that
there have been cases where I did it right despite not really knowing
the code and the maintainer did it wrong, just because I know what to
look for.

> I would like to figure out how to
> 1) send important bugfixes upstream after rc1, and
> 2) not hold up development commits to xfs/master, while
> 3) avoiding conflicts like this.

Avoiding conflicts isn't that important. Getting too many of them
implies that there is something odd going on. But a few conflicts due
to upstream bugfixes are basically "normal". Judging by the merge I
see, there wasn't anything complicated going on.


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