[request pull] intrepid-ports - Rebased to 2.6.25.16 and patched for PS3

[Dan Munckton]

On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 10:09 -0600, Tim Gardner wrote:
> Dan Munckton wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 08:07 -0600, Tim Gardner wrote:
> >> I sure get a lot of conflicts on the pull. Did you rebase correctly
> >> first ?
> > 
> > Umm. I'm not sure what "correctly" is. These are the steps I followed to
> > rebase (on my blog from notes gleaned on this list):
> > 
> > http://munckfish.net/blog/archive/2008/08/30/ubuntu-ps3-kernel-upstream-syncing/
> > 
> > If that's the not the correct procedure please let me know and I'll get
> > it sorted.
> 
> I think your method is more complicated then it needs to be. When you
> are developing against an upstream tree (which is ubuntu-intrepid-ports
> in this case) then you should always keep the common set of patches in
> the same order, e.g., you rebase only when upstream rebases. Since its
> unlikely that we'll ever rebase the ubuntu-intrepid-ports repo, then
> your work flow should be like this:
> 
> ) git clone git://kernel.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ubuntu-intrepid-ports.git
> ) Make commits to your local repo
> ) Request pulls from your local repo
> 
> There may still be conflicts if someone else has already made commits to
> the same place in the code, but then you just have to resolve the
> conflicts by hand. Given the level of activity that I've seen in this
> repo, conflicts should be rare.
> 
> If there are upstream patches, such as those from 2.6.25.y, then use the
> cherry-pick method:
> 
> git fetch
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6.25.y.git
> git-cherry-pick <SHA1 ID>
> 
> rtg

Ok I'll have to revise my work then. I'll come back once it's re-worked
against ports as is and relevant PS3 changes are cherry picked.

Thanks