* Stefan Richter <stefanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Well, the answer is obvious i think. Tell me, at a glance, if you > > see a patch on lkml, which one is for a staging driver to be > > obsoleted, and which one is the one going upstream real soon? The > > patches say: > > > > +++ a/drivers/staging/foo/x.c > > > > +++ a/drivers/staging/bar/y.c > > > > Then tell me the same at a glance if you see patches for: > > > > +++ a/drivers/staging/wip/x.c > > > > +++ a/drivers/staging/bad/y.c > > Does this information matter much? Yes. You might not appreciate it as you are active in a relatively narrow field (so all patches in your world have an 'obvious' place) - but i for example take most of the context of a change from the email itself and the more self-descriptive it is, the better. I would be more likely to review work-in-progress patches while not bother about obsolete drivers on the way out. YMMV. > What's more interesting is whether development activity will _lead_ to > a driver being moved from bad or ugly to good. ... a prerequisite of which is for more developers to be accutely aware of in what state a driver is. Anyway ... it's all up to Greg and he indicated that he wants the simplest structure, which is fair enough. Ingo -- 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
