Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f45.google.com ([209.85.220.45]:62112 "EHLO mail-pa0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753469Ab3C1WxD (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:53:03 -0400 Received: by mail-pa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id kl13so106516pab.18 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 15:53:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 15:53:00 -0700 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: "devel@driverdev.osuosl.org" , Adrian Chadd , Jouni Malinen , Kalle Valo , linux-wireless , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Kathy Giori , Yanbo Li , Mathieu Olivari , k.eugene.e@gmail.com Subject: Re: Possibility for an external staging tree - bring up quality code Message-ID: <20130328225300.GA20285@kroah.com> (sfid-20130328_235312_813046_DAED111F) References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 01:13:23PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > This has me thinking if it makes sense to have an external driver tree > for staging drivers but lead by engineers who already know the rules > of upstream, they just want to get things done faster. That's called a "fork" or "tree" or whatever you want to call it, and all of us have them, and end up merging stuff to mainline through them eventually. There is no need to "codify" something that we all have been doing for years. If someone thinks they can "work faster" in their own tree, great for them, have them do it. I don't see what I need to agree or disagree with here to keep anyone from doing such a thing. Or am I just totally missing something here? greg k-h