Re: Revised wireless tree management practices

["John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>]

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 06:53:43AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 6:37 AM, John W. Linville
> <linville@tuxdriver.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 06:31:02AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 6:04 AM, Kalle Valo <kalle.valo@iki.fi> wrote:
> >> > "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> I still see value in a tree that has a reasonably stable base and
> >> >> contains both wireless fixes and wireless features.
> >> >
> >> > I agree, it makes things a lot easier.
> >> >
> >> >> So, I think wireless-testing remains as the focal point for wireless
> >> >> LAN testing and development. I'll just be getting patches there in a
> >> >> slightly different process.
> >> >
> >> > Sounds very good. So I'll continue using wireless-testing. Thanks.
> >>
> >> But we use wireless-next as base though if we want to send you pull
> >> requests, ay?
> >
> > Yes, that is correct -- people that want to send patches (or simply
> > test) should use wireless-testing.  People that want to send pull
> > requests need to have trees based on wireless-2.6 (for fixes)
> 
> Typically we have relied on you to push fixes into wireless-2.6, does
> this change a bit now in that we should try to keep better track of
> stable fixes and send them to you instead if we're doing the pull
> request method?

Yes.  If you want me to do git pulls then you need to separate fixes
into a tree based on wireless-2.6.  Also, you should be conscientious
about adding "Cc: stable@kernel.org" to commit logs as appropriate.
The whole point of the pulls is to keep me from having to touch
the patches.

John
-- 
John W. Linville		Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville@tuxdriver.com			might be all we have.  Be ready.