Re: ceph code review

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 12:27:23 -0800 (PST)
Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/