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

James Smart
2009-10-14T14:15:29Z

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Yes, that's a real worry. Some time ago i suggested:
>
> drivers/staging/good/
> drivers/staging/bad/
> drivers/staging/ugly/
>
> good: drivers that are to go upstream in the next cycle
> bad: outgoing drivers being obsoleted or abandoned
> ugly: incoming messy drivers with active developers
>
> The messaging of this looks nice and the names are short and obvious.
>
> An added benefit is that this kind of separation makes it easy for
> people interested in drivers/staging to follow the 'status' of drivers.
> Once stuff goes into 'good' a different kind of review is needed than if
> a driver goes into 'ugly'.
>
> The main disadvantage would be the PR angle: putting new drivers into a
> path named 'ugly'. Not something you want to put into a quarterly status
> report, right? If we put drivers/staging/ugly/ drivers into
> drivers/staging/ itself, we'd solve that problem. I.e. we'd keep the
> current scheme, but we'd also add drivers/staging/good/ and
> drivers/staging/bad/ as two extra stages for incoming and outgoing
> drivers.

Change "ugly" to "wip" (work in progress). Should remove the negative
connotation and keeps things short. Does miss the spaghetti western theme
though :)

-- james s