|Subject:||Re: [PATCH 2/4] XFS: Use the inode tree for finding dirty inodes|
|From:||Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:55:56 -0500|
|References:||<email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20080722042829.GB27123@infradead.org> <20080722053019.GI6761@disturbed> <20080722072733.GA15376@infradead.org> <20080723000548.GG5947@disturbed> <488692FB.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <48881B02.email@example.com>|
|User-agent:||Thunderbird 220.127.116.11 (Macintosh/20070728)|
Mark Goodwin wrote:
Personally I don't see a reason to keep a ptools tree in lock step with
with a git tree. I all for not losing history (and I spent a bit of time when
the tree was re-organized to keep the rcs history in tack).
At this point the git tree has full xfs history and I would think this would
be sufficient for what ever code archeology comes up.
Ya I'm still amazed those scripts are holding up given nobody is giving them any TLC. :-(
The one thing about about SCM's that they are entirely a pain in the ass, but one of the most important tools in software engineering. So whatever happens it should be simple yet sufficient.
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: TAKE 981498 - remove mounpoint UUID code, Eric Sandeen|
|Next by Date:||Re: [PATCH 2/4] XFS: Use the inode tree for finding dirty inodes, Mark Goodwin|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [PATCH 2/4] XFS: Use the inode tree for finding dirty inodes, Mark Goodwin|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [PATCH 2/4] XFS: Use the inode tree for finding dirty inodes, Mark Goodwin|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|