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

Ingo Molnar
2009-10-15T06:03:03Z

* 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