On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:42:08 +0100 David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Your CONFIG_BLOCK patches did a decent job of trashing your > > fs-cache-make-kafs-* patches, btw. What's up with that? OK, it's sensible > > for people to work against mainline but the net effect of doing that is to > > create a mess for other people to clean up. > > Hmmm... Jens wanted my block patches against his tree; you wanted my NFS > patches against Trond's NFS tree. I guess I should try stacking the whole > lot, but against what? And who carries the fixes? A patch to fix this > problem may well only apply to a tree that's the conjunction of both:-/ There is no easy solution, particularly with a patch like that one which splatters itself all over the place. The best time to do such things is against 2.6.x-rc1, when everyone is maximally-merged-up. The worst time is when we're at 2.6.x-rc5, when everyone is maximally-unmerged-up. If we're at -rc5 and one doesn't want to wait for a few weeks then one can work against the -mm lineup, because then when we hit -rc1 and the subsystems are merged up, the proposed patch will slot in nicely with minimal breakage: no queue-jumping. The exception to that rule is patches which move files around. Because even a single-line change in one of the affected files will cause the move-things-around patch to break, and to need somewhat risky rework. In that case, simply waiting until -rc1 is the best approach - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
