Re: unionmount branches

[Thomas Schwinge]

Hello!

On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 09:20:45PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 07:11:16AM +0100, olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 06:10:42PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 06:46:49AM +0200, olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net
> > > wrote:
> > > > While I do think that such main a "unionmount" branch is probably a
> > > > good idea, it should contain only the "approved" patches; while
> > > > those still in development would better be placed in true topic
> > > > branches...
> > > 
> > > OK.  I'll stick to this in the future.  Shall I move the yet
> > > not-completely-approved patches away from master-unionmount into
> > > corresponding topic branches?
> > 
> > I think so. However, it's probably better not to change the existing
> > master-unionmount branch, but rather drop it alltogether and create a
> > new one with a different name once you actually start adding the
> > approved patches. Otherwise, people who already checked out the original
> > branch will get in trouble...
> 
> Just to make sure: I can push the mount patch series (starting with
> ``Add the --mount command line option'' to ``Add the mountee to the
> list of merged filesystems'') to the unionmount branch in the
> unionfs.git repository, right?

Isn't that exactly what the existing master-unionmount branch is about /
contains?  Or is that branch to be considered obsolete and you have a
similar patch series that should be used instead?  If the latter, then
yes, publishing that under a different name (be it unionmount or be it
master-unionmount-Mk_2 or whatever) is the correct thing to do.  Please
also remove the then-obsolte branch:

    $ git push savannah :master-unionmount


Regards,
 Thomas

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature