On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 03:20:59PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Dave had concerns that a regression, which, although quickly fixed, was > cited as the reason for missing a merge window. > > This concerns me too, because it's not just SGI's timetables that matter > here; others are also depending on this work getting upstream within certain > deadlines as well. > > Reading back through the list, I'm alarmed that SGI wants some unspecified > "soak time," but not upstream, for new work. There's no better place than > an -rc1 to get soak & exposure for tested patches. Bugs get found and fixed. > I don't think the XFS developer community needs a lecture on patch submission > processes and quality expectations. The best place is the for-next branch. We should aim for getting patches in early in the window rather than last minute, which is way to common in XFS land. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
