Re: Revised wireless tree management practices

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>]

On Monday 14 December 2009 04:23:23 pm David Miller wrote:
> From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:59:29 +0100
> 
> > Hmmm, there are multiple ideas to investigate even within the current
> > "merge window" policy.  Decoupling driver trees from core changes should
> > certainly be possible (it works just fine in the storage area), some
> > architectures make heavy use of topic branches to prevent 'monstermerge'
> > issue etc.
> 
> I don't think seperating drivers out will help.
> 
> I'd say every 5 or core changes we get one that ends up touching some
> API and a hand full of drivers.

Not a problem, driver trees may be based on core tree.

> And this also has implications for testing.  I want the most
> active driver folks have to test their stuff against the core
> changes as well.
> 
> This all happens automatically.

Well, in theory all maintainers should be testing -next kernels
so nothing should change also in this regard.

--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz