Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f213.google.com ([209.85.220.213]:45606 "EHLO mail-fx0-f213.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757724AbZLNQVv (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:21:51 -0500 Received: by fxm5 with SMTP id 5so3728301fxm.28 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:21:49 -0800 (PST) From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz To: David Miller Subject: Re: Revised wireless tree management practices Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:20:11 +0100 Cc: linville@tuxdriver.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org References: <200912141516.12224.bzolnier@gmail.com> <200912141559.29282.bzolnier@gmail.com> <20091214.072323.215080360.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: <20091214.072323.215080360.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <200912141720.11465.bzolnier@gmail.com> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Monday 14 December 2009 04:23:23 pm David Miller wrote: > From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz > Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:59:29 +0100 > > > Hmmm, there are multiple ideas to investigate even within the current > > "merge window" policy. Decoupling driver trees from core changes should > > certainly be possible (it works just fine in the storage area), some > > architectures make heavy use of topic branches to prevent 'monstermerge' > > issue etc. > > I don't think seperating drivers out will help. > > I'd say every 5 or core changes we get one that ends up touching some > API and a hand full of drivers. Not a problem, driver trees may be based on core tree. > And this also has implications for testing. I want the most > active driver folks have to test their stuff against the core > changes as well. > > This all happens automatically. Well, in theory all maintainers should be testing -next kernels so nothing should change also in this regard. -- Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz