Message ID | cover.1441695816.git.crosthwaite.peter@gmail.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
On 11 September 2015 at 06:44, Peter Crosthwaite <crosthwaitepeter@gmail.com> wrote: > Flush of multi-arch pre-requisite work. > > ---------------------------------------- > multi-arch queue: > * add EM_MOXIE > * Cleanup ELF_MACHINE and remove from cpu.h > ---------------------------------------- > > The following changes since commit 9d34158a5af734e8de0b42b0a7228200c426a8d0: > > Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/cohuck/tags/s390x-20150907' into staging (2015-09-07 16:07:47 +0100) > > are available in the git repository at: > > > git://github.com/pcrost/qemu multi-arch.1.2015.09.07 > > for you to fetch changes up to f4290e0cf89fa512df44e607f239d46e73d46576: > > ppc: Rename ELF_MACHINE to be PPC specific (2015-09-07 23:59:28 -0700) Hi. This looks like it's a branch, not a gpg signed tag? I only take signed pullreqs these days... thanks -- PMM
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 2:31 AM, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote: > On 11 September 2015 at 06:44, Peter Crosthwaite > <crosthwaitepeter@gmail.com> wrote: >> Flush of multi-arch pre-requisite work. >> >> ---------------------------------------- >> multi-arch queue: >> * add EM_MOXIE >> * Cleanup ELF_MACHINE and remove from cpu.h >> ---------------------------------------- >> >> The following changes since commit 9d34158a5af734e8de0b42b0a7228200c426a8d0: >> >> Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/cohuck/tags/s390x-20150907' into staging (2015-09-07 16:07:47 +0100) >> >> are available in the git repository at: >> >> >> git://github.com/pcrost/qemu multi-arch.1.2015.09.07 >> >> for you to fetch changes up to f4290e0cf89fa512df44e607f239d46e73d46576: >> >> ppc: Rename ELF_MACHINE to be PPC specific (2015-09-07 23:59:28 -0700) > > Hi. This looks like it's a branch, not a gpg signed tag? > I only take signed pullreqs these days... > OK Regards, Peter > thanks > -- PMM
On 11/09/2015 16:45, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: > > Hi. This looks like it's a branch, not a gpg signed tag? > > I only take signed pullreqs these days... > > OK I'll take these patches then until you sort out the GPG signing (I see you have created a GPG key 96CF610A). Paolo
On 22 September 2015 at 06:58, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On 11/09/2015 16:45, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: >> > Hi. This looks like it's a branch, not a gpg signed tag? >> > I only take signed pullreqs these days... >> >> OK > > I'll take these patches then until you sort out the GPG signing (I see > you have created a GPG key 96CF610A). Note that my current requirement is that the pull be a signed tag, but not (yet) that the key used to sign it have a trust path from me to it... (As it happens I expect to be able to sign Peter C's key today.) -- PMM