Chris Mason wrote on 2016/03/01 20:11 -0500:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 08:48:06AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Chris Mason wrote on 2016/03/01 11:06 -0500:
On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 10:20:26AM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
Hi Chris,
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 01:22:00PM +0000, fdmanana@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
The following changes since commit 0fcb760afa6103419800674e22fb7f4de1f9670b:
Merge branch 'for-next' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kdave/linux into for-linus-4.6 (2016-02-24 10:21:44 -0800)
are available in the git repository at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/fdmanana/linux.git integration-4.6
for you to fetch changes up to 97c86c11a5cb9839609a9df195e998c3312e68b0:
Btrfs: do not collect ordered extents when logging that inode exists (2016-02-26 04:28:15 +0000)
Filipe's branch is based on some integration snapshot that contains the
'delete device by id' patchset that was removed from the 4.6 queue.
Your branch 'next' merges it back again through Filipe's tree, besides
that the merge commits of the topic branches in my for-next appear
twice. While the duplicated commits are only an esthetic issue, the
extra branch bothers me.
I don't see a nice way how to avoid rebases in this cases. My suggestion
is that Filipe rebases the branch on my for-chris that could have been
an integration at some point.
As we're merging our branches that way for the first time I'd like to
find the workflow also for the next dev cycles so I'm open to other
suggestions.
Ugh, thanks Dave I missed this. I'll rebase Filipe on top of your
branch. The easiest way to avoid it in general is to only base trees on
top of things already in Linus' tree. If there are specific
dependencies we can work it out on a case by case basis, but the merge
conflicts are almost always trivial.
-chris
Although off-topic, but do we need to rebase all sent pull to the new
integration-4.6?
Unless there are huge conflicts, it's actually much easier to base
against a recent v4.5-rcN. That way if we do have to rebase the
integration branch, it doesn't mess up your pull request.
If there are small conflicts, I can just deal with them when I pull.
For bigger conflicts, I'll either rebase on top of integration as
individual patches, or ask for help ;)
Thanks for the tip.
Seems git can handle them well. (yeah, no more patch bombing )
Yes, I mean the in-band de-dup patchset. (If it is going to be merged)
For de-dup, I need to sit down and spend some more time reviewing it. I
know it's taking a long time, but I want to make sure we get the disk
format right up front. Lets target v4.7.
OK, I'll ensure no more modification to the existing patchset for easier
review.
Although we will continue adding minor features like compression with
dedup or ioctl improvement, so I'm afraid we'll continue bombing mail
list with 20+ patches. :)
Thanks,
Qu
-chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
