Message ID | 20200611024248.GG11245@magnolia (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | [GIT,PULL] vfs: improve DAX behavior for 5.8, part 3 | expand |
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 7:43 PM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> wrote: > > I did a test merge of this branch against upstream this evening and > there weren't any conflicts. The first five patches in the series were > already in the xfs merge, so it's only the last one that should change > anything. Please let us know if you have any complaints about pulling > this, since I can rework the branch. I've taken this, but I hate how the patches apparently got duplicated. It feels like they should have been a cleanly separated branch that was just pulled into whoever needed them when they were ready, rather than applied in two different places. So this is just a note for future work - duplicating the patches like this can cause annoyances down the line. No merge issues this time (they often happen when duplicate patches then have other work done on top of them), but things like "git bisect" now don't have quite as black-and-white a situation etc etc., ("git bisect" will still find _one_ of the duplicate commits if it introduced a problem, so it's usually not a huge deal, but it can cause the bug to be then repeated if people revert that one, but nobody ever notices that the other commit that did the same thing is still around and it gets back-ported to stable or whatever..) So part of this is just in general about confusing duplicate history, and part of it is that the duplication can then cause later confusion. Linus
The pull request you sent on Wed, 10 Jun 2020 19:42:48 -0700:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfs-linux.git tags/vfs-5.8-merge-3
has been merged into torvalds/linux.git:
https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/7cf035cc8326066a514146065b6ee8fc2c30fc21
Thank you!
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 11:00:43AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 7:43 PM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > I did a test merge of this branch against upstream this evening and > > there weren't any conflicts. The first five patches in the series were > > already in the xfs merge, so it's only the last one that should change > > anything. Please let us know if you have any complaints about pulling > > this, since I can rework the branch. > > I've taken this, but I hate how the patches apparently got duplicated. > It feels like they should have been a cleanly separated branch that > was just pulled into whoever needed them when they were ready, rather > than applied in two different places. > > So this is just a note for future work - duplicating the patches like > this can cause annoyances down the line. No merge issues this time > (they often happen when duplicate patches then have other work done on > top of them), but things like "git bisect" now don't have quite as > black-and-white a situation etc etc., > > ("git bisect" will still find _one_ of the duplicate commits if it > introduced a problem, so it's usually not a huge deal, but it can > cause the bug to be then repeated if people revert that one, but > nobody ever notices that the other commit that did the same thing is > still around and it gets back-ported to stable or whatever..) > > So part of this is just in general about confusing duplicate history, > and part of it is that the duplication can then cause later confusion. Urgh, sorry. I /was/ careful to make sure the patches matched, but I'll be more careful the next time this (hopefully never) happens again. :/ --D > Linus