On 5/11/15 7:39 AM, Brian Foster wrote: ... > What's the proposition with regard to submission/review process? I don't > think we necessarily need the userspace bits until there is some review > feedback on the kernel bits because that just increases development and > review overhead (though nothing precludes posting both, of course). Also > (and I think we discussed this briefly at LSF), I assume it is > reasonable to condense a kernel patch series to a single userspace "sync > XYZ feature to xfsprogs" patch for the bits that port directly over, > since we have the kernel git log for finer grained history..? Case in > point: I could squash the sparse inode kernel patches into a single > xfsprogs patch. The functional xfsprogs bits on top of that (e.g., mkfs, > repair, etc.) would of course remain as independent patches that require > indepenent review. I'd prefer fine-grained, myself; that way, going forward, we can have a more or less 1:1 commit history. With libxfs in userspace up to date, it should be pretty easy, if not even scriptable, and I think the minimal extra time needed to keep the fine-grained history around would be useful. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
