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
>> where > > worrying. If I'd be in your position, I would react
>> > > > >> I wouldn't worry too much about the linux-2.6-
>> for patches,
>> > >> I'd prefer if they were just alpha-$patch.patch. davej,
>> > > > > 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