From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:36349 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755034Ab0IXVOe (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:14:34 -0400 Message-ID: <4C9D14B6.70206@candelatech.com> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:14:30 -0700 From: Ben Greear MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "John W. Linville" CC: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: rebased version of wireless-testing? References: <4C9CFD86.2080207@candelatech.com> <20100924200532.GH8077@tuxdriver.com> In-Reply-To: <20100924200532.GH8077@tuxdriver.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 09/24/2010 01:05 PM, John W. Linville wrote: > 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. Any chance you could push tags in wireless-next-2.6? Thanks, Ben > > John -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com