Hi all, I just got a message from John Tyner asking why I just merged a vicam driver from Joe Burks. Rather than repeat myself a few times to everyone involved, I thought I would just post here, publicly to help straighten things out.
A bit of history: John approached me with an updated version of the vicam driver that he had developed based on the sf.net project's version of the driver, which was much improved over the in-kernel version. I encouraged him to fix up his driver for inclusion, as the sf.net people had not submitted an update in quite some time (if ever). Joe saw John's updated driver being posted on linux-usb-devel, and emailed me asking if he could send me a updated version of the driver, the one that is on the sf.net site, and has been tested by lots of people. I agreed that Joe should be allowed to update the in-kernel version of the driver, as that is the version that had already been there. So Joe sent me two copies of the driver, one for 2.4, and one for 2.5. The 2.5 version I sent off to Linus and he has merged that in his tree. The 2.4 version I have merged in my tree, but not sent to Marcelo, as he only wants bug fixes at this time in the 2.4.20-pre development cycle. So, what to do with John's driver? I don't mind also adding that to the kernel tree. It's not the first time we've had competing drivers before, and probably will not be the last. John, can you send me a patch that adds your driver to the tree, without removing the existing one? Or does anyone else have a better idea? I would like to thank both Joe and John, so far both of them have been very civil to me, and in talking about the other, that is very appreciated. thanks, greg k-h ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
