On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 22:10 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > Easy enough, the patch that fixes it is the last one in the series that I sent in yesterday.
> >
> > I don't understand. That is the patch series that Fengguang was testing
> > afaik. His tests were on
> >
> > tree: git://git.linux-nfs.org/projects/trondmy/linux-nfs.git devel
> > head: 5c13c9e1c15ee2ca9ab2b953224001af53d9be09
> >
> > which includes your patch series from yesterday, no?
>
> Trond, I typically do commit-by-commit tests and will complain if
> *any* point of the tree is not bisect-able. A fix at the HEAD won't
> stop the email notification for a defect in the middle point..
>
> On the other hand, I do maintain a list of non-rebaseable
> tree/branches, on which the HEAD commit will be tested first, and only
> if any problems are found, go back to find out the first bad commit.
>
> If you prefer the latter behavior, I can add your tree or any branch
> of it to the non-rebaseable list.
Ah... I see now... So you are saying that the end result is indeed
correct, but the bisection fails...
The 'devel' tree is usually a mixture of rebaseable and non-rebaseable:
anything that is already been committed to the nfs-for-next branch is
non-rebaseable, while the rest usually is...
Cheers
Trond
��.n��������+%������w��{.n����z�ޗ�����n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�
