From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:56731 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756376Ab0I0P5U (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:57:20 -0400 Message-ID: <4CA0BED9.3050601@candelatech.com> Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 08:57:13 -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> <4C9D14B6.70206@candelatech.com> <20100925134325.GD1948@tuxdriver.com> <4C9E1C5D.4020805@candelatech.com> <20100927150235.GB11086@tuxdriver.com> In-Reply-To: <20100927150235.GB11086@tuxdriver.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 09/27/2010 08:02 AM, John W. Linville wrote: > On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 08:59:25AM -0700, Ben Greear wrote: >> On 09/25/2010 06:43 AM, John W. Linville wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 02:14:30PM -0700, Ben Greear wrote: >>> >>>>> 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? >>> >>> Not sure what you mean -- are you not seeing the master- tags? >> >> It didn't seem like the 2.6.36-rcX tags were there..but then again, maybe >> I'm looking for something that doesn't exist? > > Ah...well, they probably won't be in there until after 2.6.36 is > released. I generally don't pull from Linus into that tree during > the release cycle in order to avoid surprising Dave when he pulls it. > But if you are basing on linux-2.6 then you should already have those > tags anyway? I was going to run some diffs in wt against 2.6.36-rc5 to try to figure out the changes I needed to pull in. A straight pull of wt into 2.6.36-rc5 didn't work well for me, and it appeared a rebase was going to be even worse. So, I'm going to try manually applying patches...after I make another stab at getting the ath5k virtual AP/STA patch acceptable. Thanks, Ben > > John -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com