On 2011-06-09 18:15, Jim Rees wrote: > Boaz Harrosh wrote: > > Who is going to SQUASH all the SQUASHMEs and re think the all patch > separation again. To something that makes a more logical progression > and easier on the review. The way it is now I'm not able to review, > sorry, I got lost trying to understand which is which. > > I'm open to suggestions and happy to do the work. I agree that 88 patches Thanks! > is nearly indigestable. However I note that Benny seems to have pulled in > the entire set so I'm not sure how to proceed at this point. Also this code patch For 2.6.39 it is what it is but for 3.[01] we should clean up the patchset and I'll rebase it into the tree again. When it's ready for final review and submission we'll have a for-3.1 branch based off of Trond's respective branch with all the queued patches. > was in Benny's 2.6.38 and only got dropped when the 3.0 merge came along, so > most of it's already been under review for a year or more. Ehhhhh, we need to re-review it for submission taking into account the major changes that went into 2.6.39 and 3.0... Benny > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
