On Jan 30, 2008 11:25 AM, Tomas Winkler <tomasw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Jan 30, 2008 6:16 PM, Jory A. Pratt <geekypenguin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Johannes Berg wrote: > > > John, > > > > > > It appears that there's more trouble caused by my cfg80211 band API > > > patch than people are willing to put up with. Tomas has already asked > > > for it to be reverted, and neither Michael (Buesch) nor Stefano want to > > > maintain two driver branches (one "stable" 2.6.25 branch and one > > > "development" "for the future" branch). > > > > > > FWIW, I support your decision to not push this particular patch for > > > 2.6.25, it really doesn't fall into the "tested well enough to merge > > > during merge window" category. > > > > > > Additionally, since Michael Wu has (privately) announced to stop working > > > on wireless, a number of drivers are effectively unmaintained now and > > > I'm not sure I can quickly fix the breakage that my patch probably > > > caused in those drivers, especially since Michael Wu is the only > > > developer with access to all that hardware. > > > > > > To ease the short term pain, we can remove/revert the commits in > > > question (those being 51c4c94e89a2042e8b20d640b49b6b605d71420d, > > > 6854a5291cce341751a7e2e195cc3e97d95afeec and > > > d0776155b288c20cc936bfd87d9a76255f244ed8). > > > > > > Maybe I should have waited longer or posted the patches earlier. I > > > didn't post them earlier because I had not wanted to disrupt Intel's > > > iwlwifi work too much knowing that there were patches, and then those > > > patches caused bad breakage with my patch so I had to wait for another > > > Intel patchset fixing a number of bugs they introduced... I'll admit > > > that timing was horrible. > > > > > > But, I'll be frank, if the patches are removed/revert I probably won't > > > continue maintaining them. I can't do much with these patches but > > > continually forward port them on top of new driver changes which is > > > boring and useless work. Experience has shown that hardly anybody but me > > > [1] actually tests my patches until I push them into your tree, so > > > continuing to forward port these patches won't actually help them become > > > better but can only make sure they don't completely bitrot into > > > oblivion. > > > > > > The only way forward I see if these patches are reverted is that we > > > announce with the reversion that we'll merge them again in N weeks (with > > > N being a reasonably small number, say 4-6) and until then people can > > > test the patches and send me driver updates that I'll incorporate. But I > > > don't see how useful that is vs. just leaving the patches in place and > > > you managing the required driver updates. > > > > > > johannes > > > > > > [1] the only other people who test it seem to be mostly clueless people > > > who want to get AP mode working and then ask me stupid questions in > > > private... there are exceptions of course > > > > > Reverting the patch is not the answer. Everyone just needs to step up > > and fix what they can. If maintainers are needed a call needs to be put > > out to find one. > > The work is in the direction that moves wireless in linux toward that of > > a windows machine that the users want and need. > > Agree. > Just, the timing was unfortunate. Please keep. The question then becomes if we should push for the merge window. Luis - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
