On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 3:30 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 07:55:01AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Mon, 2023-08-28 at 09:19 +0800, Xiubo Li wrote: > > > Next time please rebase to the latest ceph-client latest upstream > > > 'testing' branch, we need to test this series by using the qa > > > teuthology, which is running based on the 'testing' branch. > > > > People working on wide-scale changes to the kernel really shouldn't have > > to go hunting down random branches to base their changes on. That's the > > purpose of linux-next. > > Yes. As I said last time this came up > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/ZH94oBBFct9b9g3z@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > it's not reasonable for me to track down every filesystem's private > git tree. I'm happy to re-do these patches against linux-next in a > week or two, but I'm not going to start working against your ceph tree. > I'm not a Ceph developer, I'm a Linux developer. I work against Linus' > tree or Stephen's tree. Agreed. Definitely not reasonable, it's the CephFS team's job to sort out conflicts when applying patches to the testing branch. The problem is that the testing branch is also carrying a bunch of "DO NOT MERGE" fail-fast and/or debugging patches that aren't suitable for linux-next. The corollary of that is that we end up testing something slightly different in our CI. Xiubo, please review that list and let's try to get it down to a bare minimum. Thanks, Ilya
