On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Daniel Drake d...@laptop.org wrote:
It would be nice to be able to use his work, given that it appears a
big chunk of the work is already done. But there are 2 complications:
Hi Daniel
I think I know what you want -- and I'm an old git hand. Should be able to
On 19 August 2010 09:43, Martin Langhoff martin.langh...@gmail.com wrote:
I think I know what you want -- and I'm an old git hand. Should be able to
help
You have an oldish 2.6.31 + patches and you want to rebase those
onto 2.6.34, without getting tangled with. So the first step would be
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Daniel Drake d...@laptop.org wrote:
Thanks for the advice. This is effectively the 399 patches approach
I mentioned.
Yes indeed. I couldn't tell if you knew about using format-patch and
am separately -
For the 2.6.31 to 2.6.34 move, no rebasing happened. The
I'm in agreement that the right thing to do is rebase (as you
outlined), especially after starting the process of doing this. This
also means that merging linux-stable is OK (which is not a bad idea at
all). And we should put more effort into upstreaming so that the
amount of rebasing work
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 18:01, Martin Langhoff
martin.langh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Daniel Drake d...@laptop.org wrote:
Thanks for the advice. This is effectively the 399 patches approach
I mentioned.
Yes indeed. I couldn't tell if you knew about using
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Jon Nettleton jon.nettle...@gmail.com wrote:
A quick question here. Now that fedora has moved to git does it make
any sense to follow their repo as the OLPC master and then have the
XO customizations exist as a branch off of that? This should help
leverage a
On 17 August 2010 15:08, Paul Fox p...@laptop.org wrote:
would it work better to merge each of the the -stable kernels
in turn? because then you'd probably get the undo of the -stable
change along with the mainline change that supercedes it. but that
might not work, and it would be a lot of
daniel wrote:
On 17 August 2010 15:08, Paul Fox p...@laptop.org wrote:
would it work better to merge each of the the -stable kernels
in turn? because then you'd probably get the undo of the -stable
change along with the mainline change that supercedes it. but that
might not work,
On 17 August 2010 15:26, Paul Fox p...@laptop.org wrote:
i probably don't understand the problem well enough. i was
thinking that merging in the rest of the -stable kernels (and
there would be a lot of them, from 2.6.31.7 to 2.6.34.N) would
get you closer, in a more automated way. the more i
Regarding *running* with 2.6.34 (as opposed to *building* with it):
A month ago Quozl released a 2.6.34-rc5 kernel for thin wireless
testing. I ran my XO-1.5 for a week with that kernel, doing all the
normal things I do with an XO - and was satisfied. The only drawback
that I remember was some
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 07:32:30PM -0500, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
Regarding *running* with 2.6.34 (as opposed to *building* with it):
A month ago Quozl released a 2.6.34-rc5 kernel for thin wireless
testing. I ran my XO-1.5 for a week with that kernel, doing all the
normal things I do with an
11 matches
Mail list logo
