Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751139AbWJDVTj (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Oct 2006 17:19:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751141AbWJDVTj (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Oct 2006 17:19:39 -0400 Received: from ra.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.52]:53006 "EHLO ra.tuxdriver.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751139AbWJDVTj (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Oct 2006 17:19:39 -0400 Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 17:08:18 -0400 From: "John W. Linville" To: Jean Tourrilhes Cc: Linus Torvalds , Jeff Garzik , Lee Revell , Alessandro Suardi , Norbert Preining , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, johannes@sipsolutions.net Subject: Re: wpa supplicant/ipw3945, ESSID last char missing Message-ID: <20061004210813.GC9277@tuxdriver.com> References: <4522A9BE.9000805@garzik.org> <20061003183849.GA17635@bougret.hpl.hp.com> <4522B311.7070905@garzik.org> <20061003214038.GE23912@tuxdriver.com> <20061004181032.GA4272@bougret.hpl.hp.com> <20061004185903.GA4386@bougret.hpl.hp.com> <20061004195229.GA4459@bougret.hpl.hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061004195229.GA4459@bougret.hpl.hp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1893 Lines: 46 On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:52:29PM -0700, Jean Tourrilhes wrote: > On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:21:46PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > The person you merged through explicitly said that if he had realized what > > you did, he wouldn't have merged. > > I did not merge through Jeff. You did, just indirectly. I was directly upstream from you. For the record, I did not fully comprehend that we would be breaking existing tools (and their users) -- I certainly should have, but I did not. I apologize both to you for being part of this scenario I inadvertantly allowed to unfold and to the users who experienced the resulting breakage. This was the second time I took patches for extending WE, and I have received nothing but grief from either set of patches. Even had things gone smoothly, WE was already hated near universally. WE has survived based on being "good enough" for a long time. But I think it is safe to say that if WE were not already in the kernel, it would have little chance of making it in today. All the legitimate options for extending WE now amount to forking a new API. But work is already underway on a WE replacement. I think the best option is to invest in that replacement, and a compatibility layer to support older WE-aware applications. Please see the nl80211 and cfg80211 currently on the netdev list. I do not intend or expect to take any more WE enhancment patches. Only bug fixes to WE will be accepted from now onward. Jean, I thank you for your long-running contributions. I hope this will not discourage you from further participation. Thanks, John -- John W. Linville linville@tuxdriver.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/