[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Moving drivers into staging (was Re: [GIT PULL] SCSI fixes for 2.6.32-rc3)

    Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > Yes, that's a real worry. Some time ago i suggested:
    > drivers/staging/good/
    > drivers/staging/bad/
    > drivers/staging/ugly/
    > good: drivers that are to go upstream in the next cycle
    > bad: outgoing drivers being obsoleted or abandoned
    > ugly: incoming messy drivers with active developers
    > The messaging of this looks nice and the names are short and obvious.
    > An added benefit is that this kind of separation makes it easy for
    > people interested in drivers/staging to follow the 'status' of drivers.
    > Once stuff goes into 'good' a different kind of review is needed than if
    > a driver goes into 'ugly'.
    > The main disadvantage would be the PR angle: putting new drivers into a
    > path named 'ugly'. Not something you want to put into a quarterly status
    > report, right? If we put drivers/staging/ugly/ drivers into
    > drivers/staging/ itself, we'd solve that problem. I.e. we'd keep the
    > current scheme, but we'd also add drivers/staging/good/ and
    > drivers/staging/bad/ as two extra stages for incoming and outgoing
    > drivers.

    Change "ugly" to "wip" (work in progress). Should remove the negative
    connotation and keeps things short. Does miss the spaghetti western theme
    though :)

    -- james s

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-10-14 16:23    [W:0.027 / U:129.732 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site