On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 6:37 AM, John W. Linville <linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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) Typically we have relied on you to push fixes into wireless-2.6, does this change a bit now in that we should try to keep better track of stable fixes and send them to you instead if we're doing the pull request method? > 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. OK, got it. Luis -- 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
