On Tue, Aug 07 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:38:44 -0500 James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 11:11 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
James Bottomley wrote:
The initial bsg submit went via the block git tree ... which I believe
you have in -mm.
Jens Axboe wrote:
#for-akpm is usually only in very few -mm release anyway, so it's not
like it would have made much difference. We/you/I need to improve that,
certainly.
Honestly, for bsg, it wasn't much of an issue. We had build problems
when bsg was merged which was unfortunate but got fixed
On Mon, Aug 13 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote:
#for-akpm is usually only in very few -mm release anyway, so it's not
like it would have made much difference. We/you/I need to improve that,
certainly.
Honestly, for bsg, it wasn't much of an issue. We had build problems
when bsg
On Mon, Aug 13 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote:
#for-akpm is usually only in very few -mm release anyway, so it's not
like it would have made much difference. We/you/I need to improve that,
certainly.
Honestly, for bsg, it wasn't much
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:55:41 -0500 James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The real root cause of all of this is that there's no tree I can
persuade all the interested parties to test that includes all of these
features. In spite of the fact they've all been incubating in -mm for
at least 3
In defense of my maintainer, who was working on my behalf! ...
The lpfc mods were the bulk of the +/- counts. We batch our bug fixes
together and then push to James as a large lump. Unfortunately, we had
a change that changed logging from a base object to a subobject. Although
not risky, it did
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 00:14:29 -0700
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:55:41 -0500 James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The real root cause of all of this is that there's no tree I can
persuade all the interested parties to test that includes all of these
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 00:14:29 -0700
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:55:41 -0500 James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The real root cause of all of this is that there's no tree I can
persuade all the interested parties to test that
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 00:14 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:55:41 -0500 James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The real root cause of all of this is that there's no tree I can
persuade all the interested parties to test that includes all of these
features. In spite
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 21:01 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
Confused ... you did get the first pull request in the first week.
Here's the problem. Let me repeat it again:
And after -rc1, I don't want to see crap like this:
46 files
Alan Cox wrote:
I fully agree, and firmly believe that the current stabilisation works
incredibly well for shaking out bugs. My problem is that it doesn't
work for stabilising features. Either we have to get far more people
doing feature integration testing before the merge window, or we have
On 08/07/2007 05:55 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
I really, *really* think we need a pre-release tree that consists of all
the upstream targetted features (i.e. all of the for the next merge
window git trees) and nothing else. -mm doesn't really satisfy this,
because it has so much other stuff
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 11:11 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
James Bottomley wrote:
The initial bsg submit went via the block git tree ... which I believe
you have in -mm. We only started taking the updates via the scsi tree
Seven hours before you posted this, in
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Andrew
James Bottomley wrote:
OK ... that's arguable. This one is larger than I like because of the
lpfc bug fix patch ... I accept I need to do a better job getting these
into the merge window via the scsi-misc tree. So I will accept the too
big criticism and try to manage the driver maintainers
James Smart wrote:
However, I take issue with looking at line counts as the sole basis
for what's appropriate or not. It can be argued that some bug fixes may be
larger in scope than others, or patch batching so that the bug fix count is
higher will skew this perception. I also believe that more
James Bottomley wrote:
I'm arguing that a too strict an interpretation of bugfix only post -rc1
will damage feature stabilisation. Please think carefully about this.
If we go out in a released kernel with a problematic user space ABI, we
end up being committed to it forever.
IMO you're going
Jeff Garzik wrote:
The lpfc update was probably the biggest thing, LOC-wise. And even
though that was mostly bug fixes -- and notably NOT 100% fixes -- it is
big enough to warrant integration testing and exposure prior to
mainline. Definitely merge-window-open material AFAICS.
FYI - it is
James Smart wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
The lpfc update was probably the biggest thing, LOC-wise. And even
though that was mostly bug fixes -- and notably NOT 100% fixes -- it
is big enough to warrant integration testing and exposure prior to
mainline. Definitely merge-window-open material
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:21:18 -0400 Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 00:14:29 -0700
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:55:41 -0500 James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The real root cause of all of this
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:38:44 -0500 James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 11:11 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
James Bottomley wrote:
The initial bsg submit went via the block git tree ... which I believe
you have in -mm. We only started taking the updates via the
On Sat, 4 Aug 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
This is mainly bug fixes ... there's one or two features completions
that have been delayed pending ack and review to do with bsg (headers
and passthrough) but these are really required to complete already
upstream code.
James, this is the last
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 17:51 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 4 Aug 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
This is mainly bug fixes ... there's one or two features completions
that have been delayed pending ack and review to do with bsg (headers
and passthrough) but these are really required
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
Confused ... you did get the first pull request in the first week.
Here's the problem. Let me repeat it again:
And after -rc1, I don't want to see crap like this:
46 files changed, 2837 insertions(+), 2050 deletions(-)
It DOES NOT
This is mainly bug fixes ... there's one or two features completions
that have been delayed pending ack and review to do with bsg (headers
and passthrough) but these are really required to complete already
upstream code.
The patch is available here:
24 matches
Mail list logo
