Return-path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:36377 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753348AbXGYPfN (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:35:13 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:35:11 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Holger Schurig Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Please pull patch-bomb for iwlwifi Message-ID: <20070725153511.GA11785@infradead.org> References: <20070725085754.GA670@mail.intel.com> <46A75CD9.9050100@garzik.org> <200707251643.14926.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <200707251643.14926.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 04:43:14PM +0200, Holger Schurig wrote: > > 1) You should post patches to the list for review. Yes, even > > if there are 117 of them. That is acceptable -- and > > encouraged -- mailing list etiquette. > > Here I'm wondering if this is needed. For example, for the > libertas WLAN driver we have an extra mailing list where people > (mostly) post patches for review. Eventually, Dan Williams put > them into his tree and then asks Linville to pull from him. But > the patches in his GIT tree won't be sent to linux-wireless for > individual review. And libertas is the shiny example for a properly written wireless driver, riiiight?