lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: ceph code review
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 12:27:23 -0800 (PST)
> Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> The code looks reasonable to me. Unless others emit convincing
>>> squeaks, please ask Stephen to include your git tree into linux-next
>>> sometime within the next month, then send Linus a pull request for
>>> 2.6.33.
>> The code has seen 70 odd patches since then. Mostly small fixes and
>> cleanups, and a handful of larger changes. Should these see the light of
>> LKML before I send a pull request of Linus? (So far they've just gone out
>> to the ceph commit list.) I don't want to spam everyone with a huge series
>> fixing up as yet unmerged code, but I'm not sure that review on the ceph
>> lists is sufficient, given the frequency with which I see fs series on
>> LKML...
>>
>> What are the best practices here?
>>
>
> My preference would be to fold all the little fixes back into the main
> patch series then reissue it all as a nice patchset for people to
> re-review.
>
> But that practice has largely gone by the wayside in recent years
> because of git-enforced restrictions :(. It might muck up your
> development history to an unacceptable-to-you extent also, dunno.

also, many of us just don't have time to review (large) patches
like we did in the past. The number of patch reviewers is way down
in my non-statistical estimate. :(

~Randy


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-03 23:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans