On 12/01/2015 13:53, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> >> 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.
>
On 7 January 2015 at 10:34, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 7 January 2015 at 06:13, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 25/11/2014 15:17, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> * should we squash the revert and reimplement patches together?
>>>(avoids bisection break but makes the revert-and-reimplement less clear)
>>
On 07/01/2015 17:34, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> >> # All Red Hat contributions (at least Avi, Juan, me; don't know about
>>> >> rth)
>>> >> # are available under GPLv2+; also other authors agreed on it. For this
>>> >> # particular license,
>>> >> # Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini
>>> >>
>>> >> and Juan
On 7 January 2015 at 16:29, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/01/2015 17:23, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 7 January 2015 at 11:04, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> You said
>> # All Red Hat contributions (at least Avi, Juan, me; don't know about rth)
>> # are available under GPLv2+; also other authors agreed on
On 07/01/2015 17:23, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 7 January 2015 at 11:04, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 07/01/2015 11:34, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> 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 t
On 7 January 2015 at 11:04, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 07/01/2015 11:34, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> 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
>>
On 7 January 2015 at 06:13, Paolo Bonzini 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
On 07/01/2015 11:34, Peter Maydell wrote:
> 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.
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-serie
Ping^3. I think this is an important issue to resolve, so please
could somebody review what I've done?
thanks
-- PMM
On 17 December 2014 at 14:06, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 5 December 2014 at 11:15, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> Hi; this is a ping (with some of the less frequent contributors
>> taken
On 5 December 2014 at 11:15, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Hi; this is a ping (with some of the less frequent contributors
> taken off cc), because I'd really like it if we could get this
> issue dealt with (preferably before a flood of new patches to
> softfloat arrive after the tree reopens for 2.3), b
Hi; this is a ping (with some of the less frequent contributors
taken off cc), because I'd really like it if we could get this
issue dealt with (preferably before a flood of new patches to
softfloat arrive after the tree reopens for 2.3), but this patchset
needs review (for methodology, of my reimp
[If you're not a regular QEMU contributor: you are CC'd on this
just for your information and because you provided an Acked-by for
the previous version of this patch back in 2013; thanks! No action
is required from you. Regular contributors are invited to review
the patchset.]
Hi; as you may be aw
13 matches
Mail list logo
