[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Config.mk: Update SEABIOS_UPSTREAM_TAG to 442502
>>> On 14.01.16 at 17:44, <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 14:44 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: >> On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 06:00 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: >> > > > > On 14.01.16 at 12:32, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > --- a/Config.mk >> > > +++ b/Config.mk >> > > @@ -255,9 +255,10 @@ MINIOS_UPSTREAM_REVISION ?= >> > > d25773c8afa2f4dbbb466116daeb60159ddd22bd >> > > # Thu Dec 3 11:23:25 2015 +0000 >> > > # mini-os: Include libxentoollog with libxc >> > > >> > > -SEABIOS_UPSTREAM_REVISION ?= rel-1.9.0 >> > > -# Tue Nov 17 09:18:44 2015 -0500 >> > > -# docs: Note v1.9.0 release >> > > +SEABIOS_UPSTREAM_REVISION ?= >> > > 44250252eeaefd5e81bae2f73639bd323682217b >> > > +# Thu Jan 7 12:02:51 2016 -0500 >> > > +# tpm: Do not set TPM in failure mode if menu command fails >> > > +# NB: we should try to update to a rel-* version before releasing >> > > Xen. >> > >> > Assuming they cut a 1.9.1 by then including that fix, won't we risk >> > moving backwards in that case? Wouldn't it be better in such a >> > situation to follow the ipxe model and apply patches on top of the >> > most recent release? >> >> Good point. >> >> I shall drop seabios-devel a line re 1.9.1 or 1.10.0 and see what's what. > > In response to my line there is now 1.9-stable branch in seabios.git, which > contains just the patch of interest. I propose we update to that branch, as > below (+ appropriate pushes to our seabios.git tree to make the branch > appear there). Fine with me, thanks. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |