Linville update wireless-2.6/everything

[John W. Linville]

On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 05:02:42PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 11:44 -0500, John W. Linville wrote:

> > The big "rename everthing libertas_ to lbs_" patch was already sent
> > toward 2.6.25.  Doesn't that render the whole "clean tree" theory moot?
> 
> Yes, it does. That's why I wanted to have it _just_ in the libertas
> tree, and not have it recommitted elsewhere as a completely different
> commit. But now you've sent it upstream, I'll throw away my tree and
> base on your commits instead.

Again, that patch was _already_ sent upstream before you started
talking about a new tree.  Your "clean tree" has not been a possibility
since the discussion started.  Yesterday's merging did not change that.

> > I'm sorry, I just don't have the luxury of only sending pristine
> > commits to Linus.  I have to coordinate with jgarzik and davem, and
> > they usually rebase their trees before pushing to Linus in the merge
> > window anyway.  So I push them commits representing patches that
> > apply at the top of the stack.  That way your patches get merged,
> > even though your commits are lost.  It is the best I can do.
> 
> I understand. If I were you, I'd avoid using their trees as much as
> possible -- I'd work directly on Linus' tree, and also push directly to
> Linus. How often do you _actually_ depend on patches which are in
> davem's or jgarzik's trees anyway? Or more to the point, how often
> _would_ you depend on such patches, if you were trying to avoid it? 

The wireless bits are affected by any number of kernel API changes in
the networking subsystem, both in the core code and in the driver code.
Refusing to merge with Jeff and Dave is only going to make more work
for me and/or Linus, all so that a few commit IDs remain static?
It just doesn't seem worthwhile.

> But I don't really mean to tell you how to do the job. I was just saying
> that _I_ would like to use git (as git), which I don't think is a
> particularly unreasonable desire, and that I would therefore prefer to
> have a separate libertas tree based directly on Linus tree. And thus,
> please can we try to make sure that libertas patches from now on go that
> way rather than through the mangler?

You want to bypass Jeff and me for libertas?  So libertas can just
plod along in its own sandbox, not integrating with the rest of the
wireless or other networking trees?  I can't sanction that at all.
I presume that Jeff would feel the same way.

This all started with you and Holger wanting to cooperate on a few
patches that are destined for 2.6.25.  The tree you have now won't
conflict with Linus' tree until after 2.6.24 is released anyway.
So, why can't you just develop on that tree and be happy?

When your patches are ready they will get merged.  Are permanent
commit IDs really that precious?

John
-- 
John W. Linville
linville at tuxdriver.com