From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:36184 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758107Ab0IXUOf (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Sep 2010 16:14:35 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 16:05:33 -0400 From: "John W. Linville" To: Ben Greear Cc: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: rebased version of wireless-testing? Message-ID: <20100924200532.GH8077@tuxdriver.com> References: <4C9CFD86.2080207@candelatech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <4C9CFD86.2080207@candelatech.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 12:35:34PM -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > Is there a rebased version of wireless-testing, or is there a way to > tell git to not apply any patch that was later reverted when pulling? > > I'd like to pull wireless-testing changes into a tree based on linux-2.6, > but I want it clean enough to easily see what changes I actually > pulled in. > > If not, I can manually pull in some patches as needed. Don't do that -- wireless-testing is and likely always will be a mess. It really only exists as a "-next lite" for those that only want bleeding-edge wireless while keeping-up with linux-2.6 release candidates. You will be better-off pulling wireless-next-2.6 (and maybe wireless-2.6 as well). The history there isn't always immutable (although I prefer it to be), but it will tend to be a lot cleaner than wireless-testing. John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.