Jeff Garzik wrote:
> The general idea is to keep 2.4, 2.6, and pciids.sf.net in sync.
is there sync between 2.4, 2.6, and pciids.sf.net ? ;-)
Linus and Marcelo should not accept patches against pci.ids,
all updates should go to pciids.sf.net. And every X time
to do a sync with 2.4 and 2.6.
It's the easiest, because otherwise is a chaos and it
takes too much work to do several merges:
2.4 <-> 2.6
2.4 <-> pciids
2.4 <-> 2.6
--
Que trabajen los romanos, que tienen el pecho de lata.
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 21:07:17 +0200
Xose Vazquez Perez <[email protected]> wrote:
> Linus and Marcelo should not accept patches against pci.ids,
> all updates should go to pciids.sf.net. And every X time
> to do a sync with 2.4 and 2.6.
I don't know if this is the best idea.
When merging in a driver, it makes perfect sense to add the
appropriate device IDs to all PCI ID files.
On the other hand this could make life difficult for the
pciids.sf.net person.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 09:07:17PM +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> > The general idea is to keep 2.4, 2.6, and pciids.sf.net in sync.
>
> is there sync between 2.4, 2.6, and pciids.sf.net ? ;-)
>
> Linus and Marcelo should not accept patches against pci.ids,
> all updates should go to pciids.sf.net. And every X time
> to do a sync with 2.4 and 2.6.
I'd love to see a volunteer to try to sync these files up and routinely
send updates to the pci maintainers of the different kernel trees.
Anyone?
I also agree with David, it's completly acceptable for drivers to add
their ids to this file when they are added to the kernel tree.
thanks,
greg k-h