On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:57 AM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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...
That would be nice.
> 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.
However it still has to be tested if it works as supposed. Of course I'm not
trying all combinations for all arguments. :-)
Cheers,
Jan
_______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
