Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:37:55 -0500
From: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@gmail.com>
Cc: Kalle Valo <kalle.valo@iki.fi>, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
	davem@davemloft.net
Subject: Re: Revised wireless tree management practices
Message-ID: <20091210143754.GA2955@tuxdriver.com>
References: <20091209211054.GB32058@tuxdriver.com> <87ljhb0x0h.fsf@purkki.valot.fi> <20091210134733.GC11112@tuxdriver.com> <87ein30vt4.fsf@purkki.valot.fi> <43e72e890912100631if1c17b2l597168813db4a19c@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <43e72e890912100631if1c17b2l597168813db4a19c@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 06:31:02AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 6:04 AM, Kalle Valo <kalle.valo@iki.fi> wrote:
> > "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com> 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.
> 
> But we use wireless-next as base though if we want to send you pull
> requests, ay?

Yes, that is correct -- people that want to send patches (or simply
test) should use wireless-testing.  People that want to send pull
requests need to have trees based on wireless-2.6 (for fixes) and/or
wireless-next-2.6 (for features).  If you are sending pull requests
and have a feature that depends on a fix then we'll have to coordinate
to make sure the right bits get into the right trees.

John
-- 
John W. Linville		Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville@tuxdriver.com			might be all we have.  Be ready.