Felipe Contreras wrote: > But then are you saying that if upstream is broken (3.4-rc2), then > stable should be broken as well (3.3.1), and remain broken until > upstream is fixed? I fail to see what would be the point of that.
No, he's saying that when upstream is broken for the same reason as stable is, it seems wise to: - report upstream - fix your local system - fix any systems you are responsible for - fix upstream - only then fix stable. That way, the user doesn't get the disconcerting experience of getting and then losing the fix when upgrading first to the next stable version, then to the next upstream version. Makes sense? Hope that helps, Jonathan _______________________________________________ ath9k-devel mailing list ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
