Re: Moving drivers into staging (was Re: [GIT PULL] SCSI fixes for 2.6.32-rc3)

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote:

> > Well, the answer is obvious i think. Tell me, at a glance, if you 
> > see a patch on lkml, which one is for a staging driver to be 
> > obsoleted, and which one is the one going upstream real soon? The 
> > patches say:
> > 
> >  +++ a/drivers/staging/foo/x.c
> > 
> >  +++ a/drivers/staging/bar/y.c
> > 
> > Then tell me the same at a glance if you see patches for:
> > 
> >  +++ a/drivers/staging/wip/x.c
> > 
> >  +++ a/drivers/staging/bad/y.c
> 
> Does this information matter much?

Yes. You might not appreciate it as you are active in a relatively 
narrow field (so all patches in your world have an 'obvious' place) - 
but i for example take most of the context of a change from the email 
itself and the more self-descriptive it is, the better. I would be more 
likely to review work-in-progress patches while not bother about 
obsolete drivers on the way out. YMMV.

> What's more interesting is whether development activity will _lead_ to 
> a driver being moved from bad or ugly to good.

... a prerequisite of which is for more developers to be accutely aware 
of in what state a driver is.

Anyway ... it's all up to Greg and he indicated that he wants the 
simplest structure, which is fair enough.

	Ingo