From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Roskin Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:45:00 -0400 Subject: [ath9k-devel] Disconnect problem (DMA failed to stop in 10 ms) In-Reply-To: <43e72e890908181424l770b3356ie990e9cadcb39877@mail.gmail.com> References: <74d457500908121816u57b86de6j8ea54f980cf7e75f@mail.gmail.com> <19075.41714.450997.244874@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <1250142042.2352.26.camel@ct> <200908182346.29416.kunal.gangakhedkar@gmail.com> <1250629490.7534.20.camel@mj> <43e72e890908181407w2d658392w1f61b7f37beb04d1@mail.gmail.com> <1250630158.7534.29.camel@mj> <43e72e890908181424l770b3356ie990e9cadcb39877@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1250631900.7534.44.camel@mj> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 14:24 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > Anyway, why is it better for bisecting? > > Because to help developers not have to do: > > git branch -m poo > git checkout -b master origin/master > # Then apply patches manually > > Instead of the better rebasing: > > git branch -m save-my-stuff > git checkout -b master origin/master > git checkout save-my-stuff > git rebase master I use STGit, so perhaps I miss all that fun. I have never had any trouble tracking wireless-testing while keeping my patches. > john reverts his patches on wireless-testing before rebasing to Linus' > tree. There may be some other added benefit other than helping us > rebase cleanly, not sure. But I do remember before that I never was > able to rebase my patches, and now rebasing works quite nicely. You mean it's better to track wireless-next-2.6 for those of us trying to stay on top of the wireless development? I must have missed the memo. Indeed, wireless-next-2.6 has a couple of commits that wireless-testing doesn't have yet. I agree that having to bisect through reverts is not fun, and it takes one or two extra iterations. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin