On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 03:08:58AM +0200, svn@coreboot.org wrote:
Added: trunk/util/flashrom/pm49fl00x.c Removed: trunk/util/flashrom/pm49fl004.c
Mh, sorry. I kind of botched this one.
I missed that Reinder had also sent a signed-off-by early in this patch's life, he also wrote the block logic in erase_49fl00x().
And I should have made the svn mv a separate patch to improve readability.
Should I revert and repost?
//Peter
On 17.05.2008 04:49, Peter Stuge wrote:
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 03:08:58AM +0200, svn@coreboot.org wrote:
Added: trunk/util/flashrom/pm49fl00x.c Removed: trunk/util/flashrom/pm49fl004.c
Mh, sorry. I kind of botched this one.
I missed that Reinder had also sent a signed-off-by early in this patch's life, he also wrote the block logic in erase_49fl00x().
And I should have made the svn mv a separate patch to improve readability.
Should I revert and repost?
Why? "svn mv" shows up in the changelog as add+remove, so a revert isn't going to change that. If the revert is only there to fix up history, you have to consider it clutters up history even more.
Regards, Carl-Daniel
-
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger -
Peter Stuge