Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933883AbZDCRNx (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Apr 2009 13:13:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759323AbZDCRNo (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Apr 2009 13:13:44 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:46751 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760559AbZDCRNn (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Apr 2009 13:13:43 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:02:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds X-X-Sender: torvalds@localhost.localdomain To: Felix Blyakher , Lachlan McIlroy cc: Andrew Morton , LKML , xfs mailing list Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] XFS update for 2.6.30 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20090331053013.7642414167108@attica.americas.sgi.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1659 Lines: 45 On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Felix Blyakher wrote: > > > > Were there any problems pulling from the xfs repository? > > Sorry, no - just too much email, too many trees to look at, too many > people to argue with. > > Pulled. Side note - I almost unpulled afterwards. You've done several apparently totally useless pulls from my tree at random points. Daily "keep up-to-date with Linus' tree" pulls are _strongly_ discouraged (read: if this continues, I'll just stop pulling from you), because it makes the history totally unreadable after-the-fact. It has some direct technical downsides (it makes it much harder to run "git bisect" and see what is going on), but apart from those direct downsides it just makes it much harder for me - or anybody else who wants to get an overview of what happened - to visualize things when history is messy. Instead of having a clear nice line of development that says "this is what happened to XFS", those merges have basically mixed up all your changes with all the random _other_ changes in the tree. In other words, having those extra merges makes the graphical tools almost useless for getting some kind of "what happened" overview. I realize that an occasional back-merge may be required to resolve big conflicts early, but they really have to be pretty big and immediate for it to be a win. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/