<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">Hi,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 1 April 2015 at 13:52, Bottazzini, Bruno <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bruno.bottazzini@intel.com" target="_blank">bruno.bottazzini@intel.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div id=":2k4" class="a3s" style="overflow:hidden">The previous patch was done in the way you said but, <span class="il">Khem</span> Raj suggested<br>
that we should use it as patches.<br>
<br>
Copying and Pasting what he said:<br>
"Thats good, although we have to be open on stable branch to do SRCREV<br>
updates which we hardly do. We only backport fixed via master<br>
so I see this as pointless from that angle."<br></div></blockquote></div><br>At the time - when master was frozen - that was true. But unfortunately this didn't get applied in time for Fido, as a non-trivial patch that doesn't fix existing bugs there's a large barrier to pass. Now that master is open the systemd recipe can in fact track the stable git branch instead, and insert the git hash into the PV so it's obvious that it's taken from git.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Assuming that patch gets merged and doesn't cause problems, then it would be up to the Fido maintainer (that's Joshua Lock) to decide whether to merge a backport, which could well end up being this patch.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Sorry about this, the final stage of the release was quite busy and this slipped straight through my fingers.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Ross</div></div>