On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 02:37:07PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 05:08:10PM -0500, Kyle McMartin wrote: > > > > *sigh* I don't know, and don't really want to argue about it. ;-) People > > with backports are pretty much always going to get screwed. What's the > > use case for wireless-testing backports? bugfixes or new features? Could > > we improve the stable process to help wireless stuff get into 2.6.$(x-1) > > more easily so this won't happen in the future? > > I don't think we want to start adding entire new drivers to the -stable > releases, which is what the wireless backport stuff is for, right? That > would really be adding new features, which is not the goal. > Sorry, I meant getting bugfixes in. r, Kyle -- 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
