On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 01:14:25PM +0200, Jan Tulak wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > IIRC, I think this is one of the core problems the big mkfs option > > > parsing rework that Jan is working on is supposed to fix. > > > > Yeah, I think so - Jan, if this gets in your way, let us know - > > I didn't mean to make your life difficult by fixing little > > things while you work. :) > > Well, I would not mind if the entire codebase froze... :-D > But realistically, every time I do git fetch I get so many collisions that > one > more or less changes nothing. :-) Well, I'm hoping all the big changes getting libxfs up to date with the kernel code are now done, and things will settle down for the next few months so this will be less of a problem. Also having a stable master branch and a moving for-next branch for xfsprogs should help with this, too.... > And yes, in my tests I'm trying to cover the arguments order issue too. The structure of the table-based parsing should make the order of parsing irrelevant, as conflicts are defined in the table and so will be detected regardless of the order in which the options appear on the command line. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
