On 2010-06-14 03:26, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Jens, Philipp, > > On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:01:35 +0200 Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> I'm starting to think that it would be a little easier if you did not >> pull the drbd tree, I really should be pulling that into my -next branch >> instead. > > Given that the drbd tree has not been updated to match the increasingly > different block tree, I have dropped it for today. > > There a a few possibilities here: > - I just drop the drbd tree completely and it only gets merged > into the block tree. > - if the drbd tree doesn't actually depend on any of the features > in the block tree then it could be rebased onto Linus tree (and I would > cope with any merge fixups - as I do with many other trees). > - if it does depend on things in the block tree, those particular > features in the block tree could be put in a separate branch that is > never rebased and then that branch could be merged into both the block > and drbd trees (this has been done before e.g. stuff in the vfs tree. > - the drbd tree could be rebased on tom of the current block tree > (but then it must be kept up to date if the block tree is rebased). The thing with the dependencies is that sometimes they are true, sometimes they are not. What I suggested to the drbd team is that they always just base off Linus and then ask me to pull their changes, then I will resolve any potential conflicts when that happens. The consequence would be that you stop pulling the drbd tree separately. -- Jens Axboe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
