On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 14:14 -0500, Ben Myers wrote: > Hey Dave, > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 09:33:47AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:47:09AM -0500, Ben Myers wrote: > > > 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. > > You jumped the queue in front of the other cars. I'm asking you not to do > that, even if one of the drivers was kind enough to let you in. > > > 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... > > Lets see where Chandra is at with his quota work. If he has already rebased on > top of your series I don't see a good reason to rearrange things now. If he No, I haven't rebased on top of Dave's patches. I will post my patchset by EOD today. > hasn't, I'd like focus on getting his code merged before pulling in your > rearrangement. Now that you've rebased Jeff's work, I don't see much point in > redoing that, so maybe that will have to wait for the rearrangement to get > merged. > > For now we'll focus on the first 13 patches. > > Thanks, > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
