Alpha platform support for kernel package (WAS: Re: [pkgdb] kernel: oliver has requested commit)

[Josh Boyer]

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?

josh