On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 07:54:41AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 03:24:54PM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 09, 2023 at 03:37:50PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Remove this test, not sure why it was committed... > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > tests/xfs/999 | 66 ----------------------------------------------------- > > > tests/xfs/999.out | 15 ------------ > > > 2 files changed, 81 deletions(-) > > > delete mode 100755 tests/xfs/999 > > > delete mode 100644 tests/xfs/999.out > > > > Thanks for spotting it. I'm quite sure this was a result of my initial attempts > > of using b4 to retrieve the xfsprogs patch from the list, and it ended up > > retrieving the whole thread which included xfstests patches. > > > > Won't happen again, thanks for the heads up. > > Well I'm glad that /one/ of us now actually knows how to use b4, because > I certainly don't. Maybe that's why Konstantin or whoever was talking > about how every patch should include a link to a gitbranch or whatever. If all you want to do is pull stuff from the mailing list, then all you need to know is this command: 'b4 am -o - <msgid> | git am -s' This pull the entire series from the thread associated with that msgid into the current branch with all the rvb/sob tags updated. I -think- this has all been rolled up into the newfangled 'b4 shazam' command, but I much prefer to use the original, simple, obvious put-the-pieces-together-yourself approach. -Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
