On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:08:47 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote:
- Randy Dunlap rdunlap@xenotime.net wrote:
(and this is in no way directed at the networking folks - it holds for all of us. I have one main complaint about networking: the separate netdev list is a bad idea - networking regressions should be discussed and fixed on lkml, like most other subsystems are. Any artificial split of the lk discussion space is bad.)
but here I disagree. LKML is already too busy and noisy. Major subsystems need their own discussion areas.
That's a stupid argument. We lose much more by forced isolation of discussion than what we win by having less traffic! It's _MUCH_ easier to narrow down information (by filter by threads, by topics, by people, etc.) than it is to gobble information together from various fractured sources. We learned it _again and again_ that isolation of kernel discussions causes bad things.
In fact this thread is the very example: David points out that on netdev some of those bugs were already discussed and resolved. Had it been all on lkml we'd all be aware of it.
or had <someone> been on netdev.
this is a single kernel project that is released together as one codebase, so a central place of discussion is obvious and common-sense.
Central doesn't have to mean one-and-only-one-list-for-everything.
so please stop this "too busy and too noisy" nonsense already. It was nonsense 10 years ago and it's nonsense today. In 10 years the kernel grew from a 1 million lines codebase to an 8 million lines codebase, so what? Deal with it and be intelligent about filtering your information influx instead of imposing a hard pre-filtering criteria that restricts intelligent processing of information.
So you have a preferred method of handling email. Please don't force it on the rest of us.
I'll plan to use lkml-list-only when you have convinced DaveM to drop all of the other mailing lists at vger.kernel.org. Yeah, sure.
--- ~Randy