From: Andreas Dilger Subject: Re: cleaned up ext4 patch series Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:31:22 -0600 Message-ID: <20070319173122.GC5967@schatzie.adilger.int> References: <1174319308.11636.8.camel@kleikamp.austin.ibm.com> <1174324522.11657.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Dave Kleikamp , Theodore Tso , ext4 development To: Mingming Cao Return-path: Received: from mail.clusterfs.com ([206.168.112.78]:52326 "EHLO mail.clusterfs.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966032AbXCSRbY (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:31:24 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1174324522.11657.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Mar 19, 2007 09:15 -0800, Mingming Cao wrote: > I wonder if we should create two branches: one branch for patches that > are well discussed and tested, which Andrew could trust and pull to mm > tree; and create another branch to store patches that are still under > discussion and likely to be rewriten based on the review feedback. Yes, that makes a lot of sense. It would avoid issues like Andrew finding problems with the nanosecond patches because they hadn't been widely tested yet. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Principal Software Engineer Cluster File Systems, Inc.