Re: iwl4965 and driver merging policy

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Date: Thursday, September 27, 2007 - 8:15 pm

On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 22:30 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:

Allright, thanks. I was mostly trying to figure out where we standed
with this whole idea that driver additions were not necessarily
constrainted by the merge window (which I think is fair to do) and this
looked like a good example to pick since it affects my new laptop :-)

Out of curiosity, what's the main source of opposition ? Since it's
being shipped by distro or built out of tree by most users -anyway-, I
think it's pretty clear that we'd be better off having it merged asap
rather than trying to figure out what random version was included by
users/distros and try to support it, in addition to wider exposure & all
the yadada of being upstream in the first place.

Ben.

-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
iwl4965 and driver merging policy, Benjamin Herrenschmidt, (Thu Sep 27, 6:39 pm)
Re: iwl4965 and driver merging policy, John W. Linville, (Thu Sep 27, 7:30 pm)
Re: iwl4965 and driver merging policy, Theodore Tso, (Thu Sep 27, 7:47 pm)
Re: iwl4965 and driver merging policy, Benjamin Herrenschmidt, (Thu Sep 27, 8:07 pm)
Re: iwl4965 and driver merging policy, Benjamin Herrenschmidt, (Thu Sep 27, 8:15 pm)
Re: iwl4965 and driver merging policy, John W. Linville, (Fri Sep 28, 6:28 am)
Re: iwl4965 and driver merging policy, Jiri Kosina, (Mon Oct 1, 1:24 am)