From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "John W. Linville" Subject: Re: d80211-drivers updated (zd1211rw-d80211 synced with zd1211rw) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 07:51:45 -0500 Message-ID: <20061204125139.GA10912@tuxdriver.com> References: <200612040250.43955.flamingice@sourmilk.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Daniel Drake , Ulrich Kunitz , netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from ra.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.52]:34569 "EHLO ra.tuxdriver.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S936786AbWLDMwH (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Dec 2006 07:52:07 -0500 To: Michael Wu Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200612040250.43955.flamingice@sourmilk.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 02:50:39AM -0500, Michael Wu wrote: > Other (d80211) wireless drivers are welcome > to send patches this way if they do not have their own git tree for Linville > to pull. Please don't do this. It adds to my pain for reviewing patches. I don't mind (and maybe even like) pulling w/ git from primary driver authors. But, I would prefer not to add extra layers of git between me and the patch authors. Similarly, I would prefer for Ulrich or Daniel to maintain the zd1211rw git tree unless you (i.e. Michael) are going to be one of the primary authors going forward. While I'm complaining :-), I would probably prefer it if you had adm8211 and p54 in separate git trees (or at least on separate branches) as well. That way, if there is a problem in a p54 patch series, I can still pull adm8211 (or vice versa). It is not my intent to scold (so please don't feel scolded). It just is counter-productive to prematurely consolidate merging duties. Thanks, John -- John W. Linville linville@tuxdriver.com