* Randy Dunlap rdunlap@xenotime.net wrote:
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.
countered by the underlined sentences above, just in case you missed it.
Ingo