On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:16:58 -0500 Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:15:15 -0400 > > Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> I'm not complaining about Pavel - he has generally done outstanding > >> work. > >> > >> But patches posted the first time in that form two days ago (and the > >> first time completely for a long time) are simply not suitable for > > > > I agree. It's definitely premature to merge this series. The patches > > themselves have never been posted to the list AFAICT, though Pavel has > > on occasion posted a link to his git tree. That's not the same thing > > however. As a general rule... > > > > "If it's not on the list, then it doesn't exist" > > Be fair to Pavel ... I trivially found individual smb2 patches on list as > far back as February (probably earlier on the other mailing list), > the stats patch I redid to include Christoph's feedback and Pavel > incorporated much feedback this summer from at least four developers > and from the two test events I attended. You > gave patch feedback to Pavel multiple times this summer. > And with him breaking the patches into smaller pieces, > I can see why he was reluctant to post a 50 patch series, > but posted a link to them. Posting the series individually > is usually better, but this last respin was mainly to deal > with merge conflicts from your large (nicely done) async > series and other recent cifs patches. > I see nothing on the list archives in February 2011 from Pavel that concerns SMB2. I see some occasional emails about progress on SMB2, but no "official" proposals of any patches there. I've given some patch feedback to Pavel as a courtesy in advance of his posting the entire set to the list, but that shouldn't be mistaken as an acceptance of the entire series. Posting a URL to a git tree is just not the same thing as posting a set of patches. The latter indicates that you wish to "formally" propose them. Most people won't bother to pull down the tree to review it. Even if they do there's nothing to which they can reply and add comments. Again, I'm not saying that we shouldn't take these patches eventually. It looks like very good work at first glance. It's a large and complex series of patches however and warrants careful review. The process for soliciting that review is very clear. You post your patches to the list and allow ample time for people to review them. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
