Hello, On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 07:11:16AM +0100, [email protected] wrote: > On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 06:10:42PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 06:46:49AM +0200, [email protected] > > 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? Regards, Sergiu
