On 2012-01-26 16:49, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 01/26/2012 05:45 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> >>>> I merged the upstream patches one by one, resolving the mechanical and >>>> logical conflicts in each step. Was done for that backend/frontend >>>> concept, but the adjustments should basically be the same now. Want me >>>> to prepare a branch or will you do this? >>> >>> It's much more likely that you'll get it right - I started to do this >>> but backed out. >>> >>> btw, the branch doesn't appear to be merges, so I'll still have huge >>> conflicts at the end. If you do this with real merges, git will >>> recognize it and just adopt your version. >> >> I will try to use your concept: pull in upstream commits into a merge >> branch as long as there is a mechanical or logical conflict. > > That's what I do in my upstream merges. I use bisect to find the first > conflict, but in this case I imagine there will be a conflict in every > merge except the memory.c one. > >> Will then >> publish the branch for pulling. Can I start at the current 'next' head? > > Yes please. It's halfway through autotest and looks good. Even if I > have to change it, we can 'git rebase -p --onto' your branch (though I > doubt it will be necessary). Done, see git://git.kiszka.org/qemu-kvm.git queues/qemu-merge Only moderately tested so far, I'm counting on your machinery. Jan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
