[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)

    * Joe Perches <> wrote:

    > On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 21:45 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
    > > How about when it was scheduled to be removed, we put it in staging and
    > > I'll add it to my announcements about the staging tree every release?
    > > Unless you can think of a better way?
    > staging/to_be_removed_unless_fixed_by/v.x.y ?

    Yes, that's a real worry. Some time ago i suggested:


    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

    A third version would be a more neutral name:


    I think it has many advantages, but (of course!) it all depends on
    whether Greg wants to have any separation like this.


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-10-14 08:43    [W:0.021 / U:3.244 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site