On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 06:06:11AM -0700, Philip White wrote: > From: Phil White <pwhite@xxxxxxx> > > > This is a rebasing & resubmit of a dchinner patch. His comments on the > original: > ----------------- > We don't ever do wholesale rebuilds of the output files anymore, so > kill the script that does it to reduce the dependency on common and > common.rc. > ----------------- > > Signed-off-by: Phil White <pwhite@xxxxxxx> Hi Phil - it's great that you've picked this up, but it would have been really nice to know that you were doing this. Just a short email on the list with me CC'd or even just a private message on IRC. Last I heard from anyone at SGI was that SGI still didn't want to remove the old bench scripts. Now I find out that you've picked up the patchset that removes it and forward ported it.... If you let me know you were doing this, I could have let you know that my local version has several more patches in it and bug fixes that I haven't posted out. Indeed, I coul dhave taken an hour to apply all the changes to the most recent additions to xfstests and posted an up-to-date version, because I've been maintaining the patchset locally. Indeed, one of my test VMs runs this version of xfstests all the time: $ sudo MKFS_OPTIONS="-b size=512" ./check -g auto FSTYP -- xfs (debug) PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 test-1 3.9.0-rc2-dgc+ MKFS_OPTIONS -- -f -b size=512 /dev/vdb MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/vdb /mnt/scratch generic/001 2s generic/002 0s generic/005 0s .... So I could have saved you a lot of work if you'd simply told us that SGI had decided that "dropping bench is OK". If you make a decision like this, then please tell us when you make it - sometimes it will save you a lot of unnecessary time and effort.... /me knows what his afternoon is going to be spent doing: updating all the recent tests added to xfstests and posting a current patch set.... ---- For future reference for everyone, a few technical guidelines for reposting patch sets written by other people. This is important to get right, as we all know that the correct attribution of the original of the code has legal significance. - when you are reposting a mostly unmodified patch written by someone else, you should not claim it as your own, nor strip off the original s-o-b lines. i.e. reposted patches should have a description that looks like: From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> <unmodified original patch description> <[pwhite] modifications added (if any) during rebasing> Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Phil White <pwhite@xxxxxxx> See the way I have done this in the CRC patchset attributing various patches in the series to Christoph and how I've modified them from Christoph's original versions. e.g: http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/xfs/2013-March/024766.html This is especially important if the patches contain copyright title updates - they can only be made by the author of the code in question. Hence if the patch is listed as "from X" and the copyright statement says "(c) Y." then that is a big problem... - comments like "this is a rebasing and resubmit" don't belong in commit messages, they belong in the patch 0 description. Patch 0 should also contain a high level description of the patch set and outline the changes you've made to the original code. - large patch series need to be correctly threaded with a patch 0 describing the series. git-send-email should be able to do this for you automatically. - rebasing a patch set to a current tree means you need to apply all the changes to new files that have been added since this patch set was originally written. Part of rebasing is "making new stuff work"... ;) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
