* James Bottomley James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 11:56 -0800, David Miller wrote:
From: Ingo Molnar mingo@elte.hu Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:08:47 +0100
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.
That's a rediculious argument.
One other reason these bugs are resolved, is that the networking developers only need to subscribe to netdev and not have to listen to all the noise on lkml.
People who want to manage bugs know what list to look on and contact about problems.
Dumping even more crap on lkml is not the answer.
I agree totally with David, and this goes for SCSI too. If it's not reported on linux-scsi, there's a significant chance of us missing the bug report. The fact that some people notice bugs go past on LKML and forward them to linux-scsi is a happy accident and not necessarily something to rely on.
LKML has 10-20x the traffic of linux-scsi and a much smaller signal to noise ratio. Having a specialist list where all the experts in the field hangs out actually enhances our ability to fix bugs.
you are actually proving my point. People have to scan lkml for SCSI regressions _anyway_, because otherwise _you_ would miss them. In the case a user is fortunate enough to realize that a regression is SCSI related, and he is lucky enough to pre-select the SCSI mailing list in the first go, he might get a fix from you. That already reduces the number of useful bugreports by about an order of magnitude.
Ingo