On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 01:13:23PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > <huge snip> > >> This has me thinking if it makes sense to have an external driver tree >> for staging drivers but lead by engineers who already know the rules >> of upstream, they just want to get things done faster. > > That's called a "fork" or "tree" or whatever you want to call it, and > all of us have them, and end up merging stuff to mainline through them > eventually. > > There is no need to "codify" something that we all have been doing for > years. If someone thinks they can "work faster" in their own tree, > great for them, have them do it. I don't see what I need to agree or > disagree with here to keep anyone from doing such a thing. > > Or am I just totally missing something here? OK, yes I think we can work better if we had an external trees for each driver to cherry pick them as they get sanitized, prior to upstream for *some* drivers. Very well. I'll simply let vendors / developers get their 802.11 driver as part of compat-drivers so long as they maintain their poo. Luis _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
