Return-path: Received: from mail-bw0-f227.google.com ([209.85.218.227]:42644 "EHLO mail-bw0-f227.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758514AbZLJOEg (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:04:36 -0500 Received: by bwz27 with SMTP id 27so6084807bwz.21 for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 06:04:42 -0800 (PST) To: "John W. Linville" Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net Subject: Re: Revised wireless tree management practices References: <20091209211054.GB32058@tuxdriver.com> <87ljhb0x0h.fsf@purkki.valot.fi> <20091210134733.GC11112@tuxdriver.com> From: Kalle Valo Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:04:39 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20091210134733.GC11112@tuxdriver.com> (John W. Linville's message of "Thu\, 10 Dec 2009 08\:47\:33 -0500") Message-ID: <87ein30vt4.fsf@purkki.valot.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: "John W. Linville" writes: > I still see value in a tree that has a reasonably stable base and > contains both wireless fixes and wireless features. I agree, it makes things a lot easier. > So, I think wireless-testing remains as the focal point for wireless > LAN testing and development. I'll just be getting patches there in a > slightly different process. Sounds very good. So I'll continue using wireless-testing. Thanks. -- Kalle Valo