On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 04:44:00AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 09:27:19AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > Alex, this is a bit annoying. Rebases are a real pain for anyone > > downstream that is using git in non-trivial ways. > > FYI: I asked Alex to do it, so I'll happily take all the blaim here. No blame - just pointing out the consequences (again). > The real problem is that we had quite a merge mess before, which Linus > absolutely doesn't like. And if I traced it back correctly most of > it actually came from the xfsdev tree. If you call a single merge of 2.6.35-rc6 back into the for-2.6.36 branch a "merge mess", then I'm guilty as charged. However (and it is a *BIG* however), I haven't asked Alex to pull from that tree and upstream should not be pulling from downstream trees without a specific request to do so. I'm maintaining that whole tree for _my_ benefit - I need a mainline-based tree that also contains all the non-mainline XFS commits, and I need to be able to update them independently. Just because the tree contains a branch named "for-2.6.36" and has XFS commits that are not yet upstream doesn't mean the branch is a upstream pull target. Alex, if you want to pull from my tree rather that commit all the patches to the main XFS tree yourself, tell me so I can cherry-pick the commits into a clean, pristine branch and send a pull request. That way this whole problem just goes away... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
