Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the lblnet tree

From: Paul Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:58:10 -0500

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