master branch fast-forwarded to v3.7-rc1, and corp-speak mumble

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 03:20:59PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Dave had concerns that a regression, which, although quickly fixed, was
> cited as the reason for missing a merge window.
> 
> This concerns me too, because it's not just SGI's timetables that matter
> here; others are also depending on this work getting upstream within certain
> deadlines as well.
> 
> Reading back through the list, I'm alarmed that SGI wants some unspecified
> "soak time," but not upstream, for new work.  There's no better place than
> an -rc1 to get soak & exposure for tested patches.  Bugs get found and fixed.
> I don't think the XFS developer community needs a lecture on patch submission
> processes and quality expectations.

The best place is the for-next branch.  We should aim for getting
patches in early in the window rather than last minute, which is way to
common in XFS land.