On 1/25/12 3:50 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote: > [snip] > My problem is the opposite. I use x86 hardware because it's what I have, and > ath5k hardware for the same reason. > > I'm told that my patches languish because they are for 2.6.39.4 (or whatever) > and I'm encouraged to go to a newer kernel... but I can't because all of the > churn with the ath9k goes untested and tends to be extremely destabilizing to > the ath5k drivers. > > Hence I'm *forced* to use the 2.6.39.x if I want a machine that even boots.
One other suggestion I'd make to improve patch acceptance is this: let's have a more concrete set of policies about patch requirements. Recently I submitted a patch for 3.2 and it was rejected because it didn't include versions for early kernel releases (2.6.39, 3.0, and 3.1). Another patch I suggested that was for 2.6.39 which I had extensively tested was rejected because the person I had asked "was tired of maintaining so many versions" and "wanted to kill off the older versions". So what the right thing to do depends heavily on who you ask. It doesn't need to be like this. Let's have a straightforward policy like: (1) a patch MUST support the latest kernel; (2) it SHOULD support all versions going back to the STABLE version; Since (2) would only be a recommendation, it shouldn't be a blocking requirement. -Philip _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
