Hello! On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 09:20:45PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > 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?
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
