Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751730Ab2HUNKV (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:10:21 -0400 Received: from mx1.fusionio.com ([66.114.96.30]:57120 "EHLO mx1.fusionio.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750994Ab2HUNKR (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:10:17 -0400 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1345554616-03d6a50cb542fe00001-xx1T2L X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: clmason@fusionio.com Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:10:14 -0400 From: Chris Mason To: Linus Torvalds CC: Chris Samuel , "Chris L. Mason" , Linux Btrfs List , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [GIT PULL 1/2] Btrfs fixes Message-ID: <20120821131014.GA1722@shiny> X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [GIT PULL 1/2] Btrfs fixes Mail-Followup-To: Chris Mason , Linus Torvalds , Chris Samuel , "Chris L. Mason" , Linux Btrfs List , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" References: <20120809155029.GA29278@shiny> <5032EA29.2060002@csamuel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2011-07-01) X-Barracuda-Connect: mail1.int.fusionio.com[10.101.1.21] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1345554616 X-Barracuda-Encrypted: AES128-SHA X-Barracuda-URL: http://10.101.1.180:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Barracuda-Bayes: INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -2.0210 X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: -2.02 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=-2.02 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.106292 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1425 Lines: 35 On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 07:55:59PM -0600, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Chris Samuel wrote: > > > > This pull request with a whole heap of btrfs fixes (46 commits) appears > > not to have been merged yet, does anyone know if it was rejected or just > > missed ? > > Read my -rc2 release notes. > > TL;DR: I rejected big pull requests that didn't convince me. Make a > damn good case for it, or send minimal fixes instead. > > I'm tried of these "oops, what we sent you for -rc1 wasn't ready, so > here's a thousand lines of changes" crap. When just the second pull went in, I wasn't sure if it was waiting for vacation or you felt it was too big, but when I saw rc2 it was pretty clear. So I'm working up an rc3 pull with longer explanations. The bulk of my last pull was send/receive fixes. The rc1 send/recv worked fine for me on my test box, but larger scale use on well aged filesystems showed some problems. It's fair to say send/receive wasn't ready. I did expect some fixes for rc2 but not that many. More details will be in my pull this afternoon, but with our current code it is working very well for me. -chris -- 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/