Re: Possibility for an external staging tree - bring up quality code

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 01:13:23PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>
> <huge snip>
>
>> 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?

OK, yes I think we can work better if we had an external trees for
each driver to cherry pick them as they get sanitized, prior to
upstream for *some* drivers. Very well. I'll simply let vendors /
developers get their 802.11 driver as part of compat-drivers so long
as they maintain their poo.

  Luis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/