Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Dec 2009 12:31:11 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: ceph code review |
| |
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.
| |