Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 01:59:14PM +0100, Oliver Falk wrote:
> Oliver Falk wrote:
>> Dave Jones wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 09:52:44AM +0100, Oliver Falk wrote:
>>> > Oliver Falk wrote:
>>> > > Hi!
>>> > > > > Changed the subject, as happens that I oversee the
mails :-(
>>> > > And this subject is more descriptive, isn't it?
>>> > > > > Kyle McMartin wrote:
>>> > > [ ... ]
>>> > >> This all looks fine to me.
>>> > > > > May I interpret this as a *GO*? :-)
>>> > > > > > Sorry to have been so blunt, but I'm fairly
>>> > >> new to Fedora, so I didn't know you were actually working
on
>>> stuff, and
>>> > >> not just someone asking for random commit access.
>>> > > > > Don't worry. I didn't get this wrong. I can
understand you
>>> where > > worrying. If I'd be in your position, I would react
>>> differently.
>>> > > > >> I wouldn't worry too much about the linux-2.6-
namespace
>>> for patches,
>>> > >> I'd prefer if they were just alpha-$patch.patch. davej,
thoughts?
>>> > > > > Whatever you prefer.
>>> > > > > Let me know, so I start working on this today...
>>> > > Did I miss the answer to my mail!?
>>>
>>> Sorry, I was on vacation, and it fell off my radar when I got back.
>>> Looked ok to commit to me though iirc.
>>>
>>> I've no really preference on patch naming. If you want to do alpha-*,
>>> go ahead.
>>> but don't feel that you have to.
>> OK. I'll commit the changes in a clean way, add CL, etc.
>>
>> We can still move the patches and use other names. Or any other change
>> that might be necessary...
> I've clean up my changes and finally commited them (F-9 only). Plz have
> a look at it and if it's fine for you, I go on with F-10.
Looks like you committed them to CVS HEAD. The F-9 kernels are being built
from a CVS branch (which is how they are still on 2.6.27). Is that what
you intended?
I didn't want to do it directly in private-fedora-9-2_6_27-branch with
my first shot. I hope that's OK with? This way it's in CVS and I can
build from it for testing. Now that I've seen it builds fine, I can go
on and approach the 'real' tag...
-of