On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 03:38:38PM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: > "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? I still see value in a tree that has a reasonably stable base and contains both wireless fixes and wireless features. So, I think wireless-testing remains as the focal point for wireless LAN testing and development. I'll just be getting patches there in a slightly different process. John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx might be all we have. Be ready. -- 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
