From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:57670 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753235Ab0IRSvh (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Sep 2010 14:51:37 -0400 Message-ID: <4C950A22.6050105@candelatech.com> Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:51:14 -0700 From: Ben Greear MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" CC: Bruno Randolf , "John W. Linville" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: wireless-testing or wireless-next References: <201009171148.39953.br1@einfach.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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? Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com