From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Lown7-000834-IC
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 05:31:25 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Lown6-00081C-Dt
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 05:31:24 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36767 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Lown6-00080o-63
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 05:31:24 -0400
Received: from naru.obs2.net ([84.20.150.76]:52920)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <nchip@kos.to>) id 1Lown5-0007mW-2w
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 05:31:23 -0400
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:31:17 +0300
From: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/17] linux-user patches in maemo
Message-ID: <20090401093117.GA16793@kos.to>
References: <cover.1238531008.git.riku.voipio@iki.fi>
	<200903312331.43023.paul@codesourcery.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200903312331.43023.paul@codesourcery.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 10:31:42PM +0000, Paul Brook wrote:
> > This some of the more cleaner linux-user patches maemo version
> > of qemu carries. The idea was to setup a "linux-user-for-upstream"
> > branch to git.maemo.org, but unfortunately the server is refusink
> > my git pushes ATM.

> These patches don't seem particularly coherent.
> Some of them actually depend on preceding patches, others implement completely 
> independent features.

No problem, I can split these to smaller series.

> In some places you modify code, only to change that code again in a later 
> patch. For example patch #7 appears to be purely a fix for bugs introduced by 
> patch #5

These specific patches are unmodified patches submitted by Kirill in October
last year, without anyone complaining.. I'll squash patches together where
newer ones changes code of older patches.

-- 
"rm -rf" only sounds scary if you don't have backups