Re: Pull request for FS-Cache, including NFS patches [LWN.net]

From:		Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>
To:		Christoph Hellwig <hch-AT-infradead.org>
Subject:		Re: Pull request for FS-Cache, including NFS patches
Date:		Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:36:01 -0800
Message-ID:		<20081218123601.11810b7f.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:		sfr-AT-canb.auug.org.au, linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, nfsv4-AT-linux-nfs.org, steved-AT-redhat.com, dhowells-AT-redhat.com, linux-fsdevel-AT-vger.kernel.org, rwheeler-AT-redhat.com
Archive-link:		Article, Thread

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:24:20 -0500
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:44:18PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Added from today.
> > 
> > Usual spiel: all patches in that branch must have been
> > 	posted to a relevant mailing list
> > 	reviewed
> > 	unit tested
> > 	destined for the next merge window (or the current release)
> > *before* they are included.
> 
> I don't think we want fscache for .29 yet.  I'd rather let the
> credential code settle for one release, and have more time for actually
> reviewing it properly and have it 100% ready for .30.
> 

I don't believe that it has yet been convincingly demonstrated that we
want to merge it at all.

It's a huuuuuuuuge lump of new code, so it really needs to provide
decent value.  Can we revisit this?  Yet again?  What do we get from
all this?

(Log in to post comments)