[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: unionmount branches
From: |
Sergiu Ivanov |
Subject: |
Re: unionmount branches |
Date: |
Tue, 8 Dec 2009 21:20:45 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
Hello,
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?
Regards,
Sergiu
- Re: unionmount branches,
Sergiu Ivanov <=