On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:47:09AM -0500, Ben Myers wrote: > Hey Ric, > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:54:26AM -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote: > > On 06/19/2013 10:44 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > >On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 09:35:37AM -0500, Ben Myers wrote: > > >>>On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 02:50:08PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > >>>> >This is my patch queue for 3.11 as it stands right now. > > >>> > > >>>Getting all of this in for 3.11 does not strike me as being realistic. You > > >>>need to think about how this can be split up. I see that you have rebased > > >>>Jeff's log size validation patch set after your rearrangement. I'd rather > > >>>you'd taken Jeff's series first and then made your changes. Now we can't pull > > >>>in Jeff's work without pulling in a bunch of rearrangement that hasn't been > > >>>fully discussed. You have also crowded out Chandra's quota work. We had an > > >>>agreement with him to go for 3.11 with that work which you have broken. > > > > >I think 3.11 is a realistic target for all the code movearound, but > > >maybe not as part of the normal pull request for -rc1. If we make sure > > >it's really moving code around and not changing it I think a sending a > > >second pull request to Linus saying this is just code movearounds we > > >wanted to do when the churn causes least problems with actual code work > > >he should be fine with it. > > > > Just to chime in here, we have a lot of resources focused on testing > > these XFS updates both internally with our QA team and with a range > > of other RH partners. > > This isn't about the size of your QA team or the number of other RH partners. > > We had an agreement with Chandra to work toward getting his quota work in 3.11 > and it appears that Dave has crowded him out with a rearrangement of code which > we had no agreement would go into 3.11. What I posted is what I'm *proposing* for 3.11. You can't have an agreement with first having a proposal.... > Further, Dave has taken Jeff's log > size validation series hostage by rebasing it on top of this rearrangement of > code. Ben, I think you're being a little melodramatic here. I asked Jeff if it was OK to rebase his patchset, and he said that was fine: http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/xfs/2013-June/027270.html You don't have to take my rebase of Jeff's patches - you're welcome to take them direct from Jeff, but then I'll have to send reviews asking for changes to problems I found when integrating it so that's going to delay any integration you can do of that series. Please let Jeff and myself know what you want to do here... > If there is a strategic reason that RH needs to have the kernel/libxfs code > rearranged and separated in 3.11 I would have liked to have heard about it > before now. I'm all for getting this work done, but not at the expense of > crowding out other XFS contributors. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. I had an itch, and I scratched it. Simple as that. It is only a couple of days work. If you think it's too much for 3.11, then just say so and leave it at that. I'll move it to my for-3.12 queue and you won't see it again until after 3.11-rc1 is released... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
