From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:37891 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751893Ab0ITOos (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:44:48 -0400 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:42:39 -0400 From: "John W. Linville" To: Ben Greear Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Bruno Randolf , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: wireless-testing or wireless-next Message-ID: <20100920144238.GB2434@tuxdriver.com> References: <201009171148.39953.br1@einfach.org> <4C950A22.6050105@candelatech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <4C950A22.6050105@candelatech.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 11:51:14AM -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > On 09/16/2010 08:02 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Bruno Randolf wrote: > >>John, Luis, > >> > >>I'm a little confused about which tree to use. I though we should base driver > >>development on wireless-testing, but I see that you merge patches into > >>wireless-next first. So should we re-base patches to wireless-next before we > >>send them? > > > >Rule of thumb is if its large use linux-next, wireless-testing just > >lets you actually boot a usable kernel. > > I saw what looked like a nice series of patches from you four days ago > (power save, etc). But, they have not been applied to wireless-testing. > > Is there a tree that does contain these sorts of patches, or must > we manually apply them to our own trees if we want to try them out? You are just a bit unlucky in this case... I actually did have them in wireless-testing...on my machine. :-( I had a little merge/push hiccup that should be resolved now -- must have been in too much of a hurry for my day-off on Friday! Sorry for the inconvenience! John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.