On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 06:53:43AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > 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? Yes. If you want me to do git pulls then you need to separate fixes into a tree based on wireless-2.6. Also, you should be conscientious about adding "Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx" to commit logs as appropriate. The whole point of the pulls is to keep me from having to touch the patches. 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
