On 7 January 2015 at 06:13, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On 25/11/2014 15:17, Peter Maydell wrote: >> Questions for review: >> * can we do the git cherry-pick thing I mention above? > > I'm afraid that would double the size of the repository (in terms of > number of commits). > > One possibility is this: > > git checkout 158142c2 > git cherry-pick this-series~5 # patch 1 > git cherry-pick this-series~2 # patch 4 > git cherry-pick this-series~1 # patch 5 > git merge origin/master > git checkout -p -- this-series~1 # patch 5 > git commit --amend -C HEAD > git cherry-pick this-series # patch 6 > > Then the reverts are implicit in the merge commit. > > However, this will probably still cause problems with bisection, since > the merge base between 2.2 and 2.3 will be in prehistory.
I meant more in the sense of how we generated the eventual relicensing-patch to apply to current master, rather than trying to make master's actual history have weird things in it. Anyway, it sounds like the thing I did is the best we can do. >> * should we squash the revert and reimplement patches together? >> (avoids bisection break but makes the revert-and-reimplement less clear) > > I think we can do that, provided the reimplemented functions are in > different places than the originals, so that the revert-and-reimplement > is still clear from the diff. OK. I'll make sure I do that with the next version. >> * are people happy with my attempt to clarify the licensing status of >> the source files in patch 6, and my choice of GPLv2+ for future >> contributions to them? > > I think SoftFloat-2a is more appropriate but I don't really care. The thing is that after all these relicensings we end up with a file with a mix of licenses in it. So for somebody actually using the file the controlling license is GPLv2+. (In particular all the RedHat contributions are GPLv2+, not SoftFloat-2a...) So it seemed simplest to say 'GPLv2+ for future changes'; but it wouldn't make any major difference to pick softfloat-2a I guess (and that is the license covering the bulk of the code so it does make more sense in some ways). Thanks for looking at the series. -- PMM
