| To: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Handling of reviewed patch series |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 13 Dec 2013 03:19:59 -0800 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20131213053611.GQ10988@dastard> |
| References: | <20131213053611.GQ10988@dastard> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
I'm a big fan of the for-next vs for-linux split for next release work vs bugfixes which we've not applied yet. The whole topic branches scheme makes sense for large changes like the crc work, but seems utterly confusing if applied to every little change, as now the amount of branches you can conflict againt multiplies. I'm defintively in favour of a model that has less active branches. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] xfstests: set umask to avoid spurious generic/314 test failures, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] xfs: allow linkat() on O_TMPFILE files, Zhi Yong Wu |
| Previous by Thread: | [RFC] Handling of reviewed patch series, Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC] Handling of reviewed patch series, Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |