git help needed for 2.6.34 kernel branch revival

Martin Langhoff martin.langhoff at
Thu Aug 19 12:01:30 EDT 2010

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Daniel Drake <dsd at> wrote:
> Thanks for the advice. This is effectively the "399 patches" approach
> I mentioned.

Yes indeed. I couldn't tell if you knew about using format-patch and
am separately -

> For the 2.6.31 to 2.6.34 move, no rebasing happened. The 2.6.34 kernel
> tree was simply merged into the + olpc tree.
> I think this was a mistake, given that 2.6.34 doesn't logically follow
> on from

Yeah. Ugly mistake.

>  And we should put more effort into upstreaming so that the
> amount of rebasing work is not so great each time.

Always true. Helps when you have a kernel hacker around. We've lost ours :-/

Any kernel hacker reading this should look at: ...

 martin.langhoff at
 martin at -- School Server Architect
 - ask interesting questions
 - don't get distracted with shiny stuff  - working code first

More information about the Devel mailing list