"John W. Linville" <linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Greetings, Hi, > So I'm tired of a) being asked how wireless-testing is managed; and, > b) having trouble explaining it. I think it is time to move to a > more conventional process for wireless patches. Hopefully this also reduces your workload. There is quite a lot of wireless patches floating around nowadays. > More likely, it means I may have to push an occasional revert > through those trees that I might have otherwise avoided. Having reverts in the tree doesn't sound that bad. Even we do mistakes sometimes, no need to hide them :) > For now, the main change to wireless-testing will be that I will be > pulling from wireless-2.6 and wireless-next-2.6 rather than reapplying > most patches. This should limit (and possibly eliminate) the confusing > patch-revert-reapply-repeat practice I have been using there for a > long time. However, I still anticipate using w-t as a holding area > for questionable patches. So, at least some patches may still get > the revert-reapply treatment. I may ask Stephen to pull w-t into > linux-next in order to expand testing of any such patches. I have two questions: What tree should I base my patches on? What about testing? Which tree is best to use for testing latest and greatest wireless patches? -- Kalle Valo -- 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
