From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751538AbWH3UzT (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:55:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751559AbWH3UzT (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:55:19 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:40126 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751538AbWH3UzR (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:55:17 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:55:03 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: David Howells Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, steved@redhat.com, trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cachefs@redhat.com, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Permit filesystem local caching and NFS superblock sharing [try #13] Message-Id: <20060830135503.98f57ff3.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <27414.1156970238@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> References: <20060830125239.6504d71a.akpm@osdl.org> <20060830193153.12446.24095.stgit@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <27414.1156970238@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.7 (GTK+ 2.8.6; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 21:37:18 +0100 David Howells wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > These patches add local caching for network filesystems such as NFS and AFS. > > > > > > > > Not interested. Please go learn quilt, send incremental patches. > > What's quilt able to do that StGIT can't? AFAICT from quilt's manpage, it > can't mail incremental patches, so how does it help anyway? > It was just a suggestion. Please: - test the patches which are presently in -mm. I don't even know if they work, and we prefer to send Linus working stuff. - Send fine-grained incremental patches. It's OK to do complete replacement patchsets when the code is new, but this stuff is supposed to be stabilised. It took me quite a lot of time to extract the incremental patches out of try#12 and I don't want to do it again, plus it's just another step in which errors can be introduced. Why incremental patches? - So we can see what changed and don't have to re-review the whole thing - So the recipient doesn't have to re-fix the same pile of rejects each time. - So fixes which came in via other sources don't get lost.