>> Isn't it "Upstream-Status: Backport [URL]"?
>>
>> Also, what were the changes in v2 and v3 of this patch?
>
> Yes, it should be backport and the header is to be included in the
> patch file, not on the commit log
Sorry, I thought it was Accepted because there is not (yet) any official
Yes, it should be backport and the header is to be included in the
patch file, not on the commit log
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> Isn't it "Upstream-Status: Backport [URL]"?
>
> Also, what were the changes in v2 and v3 of this patch?
>
>
> On Wed,
Isn't it "Upstream-Status: Backport [URL]"?
Also, what were the changes in v2 and v3 of this patch?
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 03:52:29PM +0100, Kristian Amlie wrote:
> See the patch for details. This patch has already been applied
> upstream, but we need it for v2017.11.
>
> Upstream-Status:
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 03:52:29PM +0100, Kristian Amlie wrote:
> See the patch for details. This patch has already been applied
> upstream, but we need it for v2017.11.
>
> Upstream-Status: Accepted
> [http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=commit;h=ded84f90a1066eef5f34daa4539273de64f7b811]
>
>
See the patch for details. This patch has already been applied
upstream, but we need it for v2017.11.
Upstream-Status: Accepted
[http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=commit;h=ded84f90a1066eef5f34daa4539273de64f7b811]
Signed-off-by: Kristian Amlie
---