On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 06:31:02AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 6:04 AM, Kalle Valo <kalle.valo@xxxxxx> wrote: > > "John W. Linville" <linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > >> I still see value in a tree that has a reasonably stable base and > >> contains both wireless fixes and wireless features. > > > > I agree, it makes things a lot easier. > > > >> 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. > > > > Sounds very good. So I'll continue using wireless-testing. Thanks. > > But we use wireless-next as base though if we want to send you pull > requests, ay? Yes, that is correct -- people that want to send patches (or simply test) should use wireless-testing. People that want to send pull requests need to have trees based on wireless-2.6 (for fixes) and/or wireless-next-2.6 (for features). If you are sending pull requests and have a feature that depends on a fix then we'll have to coordinate to make sure the right bits get into the right trees. 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
