On Monday 14 December 2009 04:23:23 pm David Miller wrote: > From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:59:29 +0100 > > > Hmmm, there are multiple ideas to investigate even within the current > > "merge window" policy. Decoupling driver trees from core changes should > > certainly be possible (it works just fine in the storage area), some > > architectures make heavy use of topic branches to prevent 'monstermerge' > > issue etc. > > I don't think seperating drivers out will help. > > I'd say every 5 or core changes we get one that ends up touching some > API and a hand full of drivers. Not a problem, driver trees may be based on core tree. > And this also has implications for testing. I want the most > active driver folks have to test their stuff against the core > changes as well. > > This all happens automatically. Well, in theory all maintainers should be testing -next kernels so nothing should change also in this regard. -- Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz -- 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
