On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 09:09:54PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > 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), It wasn't that simple. We had a few unclean merges from mainline and from for-linux to for-2.6.36 or similar branches. > 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. Yeah. The normal way to maintain a development branch is to stay is to never pull in mainline into an existing branch. If we absolutely need to update to a newer version from Linus' tree it should be rebased ontop of it. Unfortunately we'll need to do this once in a while for something like XFS which has rather complex interactions with core VM and VFS changes, so expecting the xfs development branch to be a stable target is not generally a good idea. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
