Hi again. (Adding -boot@ for information, that happened to catch my eye on -bsd@; and it's about commit bits for Steven below, too.) Steven Chamberlain <steven@pyro.eu.org> (2013-07-22): > On 22/07/13 22:48, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > Steven Chamberlain <steven@pyro.eu.org> (2013-07-22): > >> [ Steven Chamberlain ] > >> * Drop GRUB module pxecmd, which was merged into pxe > >> + * Remove gPXE workaround (fixed in grub2 as #635877) > > > > Thanks. Might be worth mentioning both target hurd/kfreebsd, so that later > > readers don't have to figure out whether they're affected by those changes. > > I didn't think of that, yes maybe, but those two are the only arches > using grub2pxe; others use pxelinux. That you know. Others reading the changelog, not necessarily. You'd be amazed to see how many people actually test dailies/weeklies and then try to figure out where regressions come from. (#debian-boot regularly hosts such questions. Being able to answer swiftly is nice.) > > Also, I think it could be nice to have grub2's fix into testing [...] > > Do you mean the #635877 fix making the gPXE workaround redundant? > (Specifically, it was disabling of the multiboot header in the > i386-pc-pxe target, by upstream 2.00). I thought that was already in > testing... > > > (grub2's migration is a story in itself, see another > > list these days…) > > OK I will look into that. But already this has me puzzled: > packages.d.o and the PTS suggest grub2 2.00-14 in jessie, but bug > #635877's version graph seems confused... > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/version.cgi?info=1;absolute=0;fixed=grub2%2F2.00-1;fixed=grub2%2F2.00-4;collapse=1;found=grub2%2F1.99-9;package=grub-pc > > I think this should wait until I'm thinking coherently in any case. The situation is confusing indeed, bottom line(s): http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/07/msg00690.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/07/msg00695.html > Would it be appropriate for me to ask for commit access to d-i Git, > perhaps for this, or likely for small d-i bits in future? Certainly. Letting -boot@ know through this mail. For things you feel sufficiently comfy with, getting stuff reviewed on -bsd@ is probably sufficient, but don't be afraid to ask/cc -boot@ for (possibly…) more eyes. > On 22/07/13 22:36, Robert Millan wrote: > > [...] I'm not sure how this works. Am I supposed to > > just apply them, or do you expect your name to show up in the git log? > > I'm afraid I don't know how to do the later [...] > > I'm not sure how the committer does this, but yes it's supposed to work > something like that if I send patches in that form; I suspect git-am(1) > is used. Yes, git-am means we know that author = Steven, committer = Robert. One needs to look slightly deeper (git log --format=fuller or gitk) to see the committer, so one might like to add a signed-off-by line when signing off on somebody else's changes. That's also what I do when I cherry-pick things from a branch to another. See for example 95280b9c403adf747f860406b899bbee794ad097 in the installer. Mraw, KiBi.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature