On Tue, 2024-02-13 at 13:19 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote: > On 2/13/2024 12:45 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Tue, 2024-02-13 at 12:13 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote: > > > > > > I recall the rule was that nl80211 API changes > > > should also have at least one driver implementing it. Guess we let that > > > slip a couple of times. I fully agree enforcing this. > > > > Well, enforcing it strictly never really worked all that well in > > practice, since you don't necessarily want to have a complex driver > > implementation while hashing out the API, and the API fundamentally has > > to come first. > > > > So in a sense it comes down to trust, and that people will actually > > follow up with implementations. And yeah, plans can change and you end > > up not really supporting everything that was defined ... that's life, I > > guess. > > > > But the mode here seems to be that there's not even any _intent_ to do > > that? > > > > I guess we could hash out the API, review the patches, and then _not_ > > apply them until a driver is ready? So the first round of reviews would > > still come with API only, but once that settles we don't actually merge > > it immediately, unlike normally where we merge a patch we've reviewed? > > And then if whoever did it lost interest, we already have a reviewed > > version for anyone else who might need it? > > Sounds like a plan. Maybe they can get a separate state in patchwork and > let them sit there for grabs. I guess I can leave them open as 'under review' or something? Not sure we can add other states. johannes
