On Monday 08 December 2008 4:16:24 pm James Morris wrote: > On Mon, 8 Dec 2008, Paul Moore wrote: > > James, is the security-testing tree rebased regularly or is > > suitable to back a tree against? > > No, it doesn't get rebased. Okay, experiment time. I think I managed to pull from all the right spots, merge everything appropriately and end up with a security/ directory that builds so I pushed it back out to the lblnet-2.6_next tree. I'm not quite sure the proper etiquette here but I had to fix Casey's patch a bit since it would apply cleanly; Casey if you could take a look I would appreciate it (it isn't exactly like what Stephen posted earlier but it is pretty darn close). > > If so, I can rebase the lblnet-2.6_next tree > > against security-testing to resolve the conflict ... > > Ok, and I can carry your patches in there if necessary. I would like to figure out to make this work as it is likely to happen again at some point in the future, but if I can't get it working quickly I may punt on it and ask you to pull in the patches. -- paul moore linux @ hp -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
