From: Valerie Aurora <vaurora@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Fix device too big bug in mainline?
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 17:29:37 -0400
Message-ID: <20090804212937.GM9324@shell>
References: <20090730215302.GA31141@shell> <20090802002833.GB8680@mit.edu> <20090802022209.GC8680@mit.edu> <20090804182811.GG9324@shell> <20090804204122.GL28678@mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>,
	Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@redhat.com>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090804204122.GL28678@mit.edu>
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 04:41:22PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 02:28:11PM -0400, Valerie Aurora wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 10:22:09PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > > In case people are wondering why it's taking so long to merge the
> > > 64-bit patch series, let me show one patch as exhibit 'A' about how
> > > not to submit patches to me (or Linus, or any other upstream
> > > maintainer):
> > 
> > Oh, geez, those are an old patch set!  I did go back and fix the
> > temporary commits and dangly semi-colons, plus reimplemented progress
> > meters the way you wanted:
> > 
> > http://osdir.com/ml/linux-ext4/2009-02/msg00591.html
> 
> Oh, I see what happened.  It looks like you fixed some of that up in
> the "shared-64bit-handover" branch, but I didn't see that one, since
> you checked in the bug fixes and patches which Nick Dokus submitted
> into the "shared-64bit" branch.  Hence, the shared-64bit branch had
> commits in it dating from May, 2009, while the shared-64bit-handover
> branch had commits dating from February, 2009.  Hence, I started work
> using the shared-64bit branch instead of the shared-64bit-handover
> branch.

Yeah, it's pretty hard to keep track of which branch does what after
several months go by.  Maybe next time we can sync up first if it's
been a while since the last review/pull request.

-VAL