On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 02:28:11PM -0400, Valerie Aurora wrote: > On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 10:22:09PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > > In case people are wondering why it's taking so long to merge the > > 64-bit patch series, let me show one patch as exhibit 'A' about how > > not to submit patches to me (or Linus, or any other upstream > > maintainer): > > Oh, geez, those are an old patch set! I did go back and fix the > temporary commits and dangly semi-colons, plus reimplemented progress > meters the way you wanted: > > http://osdir.com/ml/linux-ext4/2009-02/msg00591.html Oh, I see what happened. It looks like you fixed some of that up in the "shared-64bit-handover" branch, but I didn't see that one, since you checked in the bug fixes and patches which Nick Dokus submitted into the "shared-64bit" branch. Hence, the shared-64bit branch had commits in it dating from May, 2009, while the shared-64bit-handover branch had commits dating from February, 2009. Hence, I started work using the shared-64bit branch instead of the shared-64bit-handover branch. This is, by the way, why I believe using a patch queue is a ****much**** better way of working, instead of using multiple git branches. I'm guessing that when Nick started submitting patches, you got confused and applied his patches onto the wrong branch, and so of course I used the latest, new version of the 64-bit branch --- which meant that I got Nick's fixes, but not your cleanups. Argh.... I wish I had figured this out much earlier, since at this point, I've done so much work using the non-cleaned-up patches, including merging around a third of the patches into e2fsprogs mainline, that it's probably not worth it to go back. - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
