Hi,
I'm about to send another respin of the Squashfs patches. Do I base
them against linux-next.git, linux-2.6.git or what? I thought they
should be against linux-next, but I've already got one complaint. So,
I'm confused, what tree should new patches be based off?
Any advice would be useful.
Thanks
Phillip
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 05:33:52 +0100 Phillip Lougher <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm about to send another respin of the Squashfs patches. Do I base
> them against linux-next.git, linux-2.6.git or what? I thought they
> should be against linux-next, but I've already got one complaint. So,
> I'm confused, what tree should new patches be based off?
>
If they're being released for people to test and play with, I'd make
them aginst mainline or 2.6.27.
If they're being released for review-and-merge then yes, linux-next
would be better, but that's a fairly minor merging matter. A much bigger
task is getting them reviewed and generally getting a bit of
momentum/interest/enthusiasm/etc.
Hi Phillip,
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 05:33:52 +0100 Phillip Lougher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I'm about to send another respin of the Squashfs patches. Do I base
> them against linux-next.git, linux-2.6.git or what? I thought they
> should be against linux-next, but I've already got one complaint. So,
> I'm confused, what tree should new patches be based off?
Please base your patches on Linus' current git tree. linux-next is too
much of a moving target.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
On Tue, 21 October 2008 23:17:57 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> A much bigger
> task is getting them reviewed and generally getting a bit of
> momentum/interest/enthusiasm/etc.
How much of that is needed? Squashfs is very widely used and the
current work is _much_ better than it used to be. There is some work
remaining to be done, but the current format appears sane.
I'd vote to merge this fairly soon.
Jörn
--
All art is but imitation of nature.
-- Lucius Annaeus Seneca