On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 5:19 PM, John W. Linville <linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 08:02:26PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Bruno Randolf <br1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > John, Luis, >> > >> > I'm a little confused about which tree to use. I though we should base driver >> > development on wireless-testing, but I see that you merge patches into >> > wireless-next first. So should we re-base patches to wireless-next before we >> > send them? >> >> Rule of thumb is if its large use linux-next, wireless-testing just >> lets you actually boot a usable kernel. > > Actually, I generally prefer that patches target wireless-testing. > In the even of conflicts between that and wireless-next-2.6, I can > usually sort them out myself. If not, I'll ask. Ah thanks :) >> > Also, AFAIK, compat-wireless is based on linux-next, so if I want to create a >> > compat-wireless package based on my latest driver changes (I need to do this >> > frequently for testing my driver on my platform), I always run into problems >> > because my latest driver is in wireless-testing and not in linux-next. Do you >> > have any advise on a proper workflow here? >> >> I have a "wl" branch for wireless-testing too :) the master branch is >> for linux-next. > > Actually, there will almost never be anything in wireless-testing > that isn't in linux-next. linux-next pulls from wireless-next-2.6, > just as wireless-testing does. True, except Ethernet updates get merged into linux-next too and I rely on that for some of our Ethernet drivers updated too. 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
