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

[James Smart <James.Smart@Emulex.Com>]

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