From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from kroah.org ([198.145.64.141]:46527 "EHLO coco.kroah.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753180AbZATWlO (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:41:14 -0500 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:37:07 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Kyle McMartin Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Luis Rodriguez , Paul Hickey , "stable@kernel.org" , Kyle McMartin , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [stable] Failed Build of modules for 2.6.27.9-159 Message-ID: <20090120223707.GA5988@kroah.com> (sfid-20090120_234119_060380_5D149D28) References: <20090119191138.GA4018@tesla> <1232404986.3641.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090120000336.GB4018@tesla> <1232433738.3696.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090120194243.GC19581@tesla> <20090120200515.GA5077@kroah.com> <20090120201316.GG19581@tesla> <20090120201613.GA5313@kroah.com> <20090120211630.GJ19581@tesla> <20090120220810.GE17452@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20090120220810.GE17452@bombadil.infradead.org> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 05:08:10PM -0500, Kyle McMartin wrote: > > *sigh* I don't know, and don't really want to argue about it. ;-) People > with backports are pretty much always going to get screwed. What's the > use case for wireless-testing backports? bugfixes or new features? Could > we improve the stable process to help wireless stuff get into 2.6.$(x-1) > more easily so this won't happen in the future? I don't think we want to start adding entire new drivers to the -stable releases, which is what the wireless backport stuff is for, right? That would really be adding new features, which is not the goal. thanks, greg k-h