Hi Michael, On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 17:34:30 -0400 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Jean Delvare wrote: > > Why not, please? A vast majority of drivers work fine that way today. I > > am still waiting for someone to give me a good reason why some other > > drivers supposedly can't be merged upstream (something better than > > "believe me, it's impossible".) > > Nobody said that a driver "...can't be merged upstream" ... but > REQUIRING a driver to be merged upstream to allow development and / or > testing is a problem, IMHO. > > If you required that all of my development happens within a git > development repository, preventing me from working against distro-kernel > xyz, then I would simply spend more time on Windows driver development > and my Linux contributions would cease.
Not my goal, obviously. > External subsystem development repositories allow us to work against > stable kernels at our own pace. When driver X is ready to be merged, it > gets merged. > > With the model that you propose, "use linux-next for development" ... > well then what about testing? Who is going to test my driver if it > requires a full kernel compile? Some distributions do package linux-next. And this seems to be a very easy way to get end users to test bleeding edge code. You just tell the user to install the linux-next package and he/she's done. No need to build anything. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
