[Top][All Lists]

[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)


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?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]