On Mon, 2016-10-03 at 12:30 -0700, Saul Wold wrote: > On Mon, 2016-10-03 at 14:42 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Cal Sullivan <california.l.sullivan@i > > ntel.com> wrote: > > > + Bruce > > > > > > I also can't find that revision on the remote branch... > > > > There were some fixups lately, but yah, I don't see that revision > > either. One of the > > rebase branches was force updated for those cleanups, but not > > standard/intel/base.
So it's not certain yet how this happened? I think it would be worthwhile to investigate, to ensure that similar mistakes won't happen again. > > Either way, I sent a pull request late last night that has the > > revisions I've been testing > > so they should work. Does that bring back 94e5bb30ea onto the standard/intel/base branch? > The problem is that the current and existing Ostro Project is using the > hash in question and so missing it from the existing 4.4 will cause > issues for them. Not just Ostro - unless I miss something, anyone using the current meta-intel will be unable to build the 4.4 kernel from upstream sources. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. -- _______________________________________________ meta-intel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-intel
