Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 26 Aug 2020 16:53:51 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     "David K. Kahurani" <k.kahurani@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, admin@rapidseedbox.com,
        gichini.ngaruiya@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.7 00/15] 5.7.19-rc1 review
Message-ID: <20200826145351.GA4181729@kroah.com>
References: <20200826114849.295321031@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20200826144915.GD16589@metal>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200826144915.GD16589@metal>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 05:49:15PM +0300, David K. Kahurani wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 02:02:28PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > -------------------
> > Note, ok, this is really going to be the final 5.7.y kernel release.  I
> > mean it this time....
> > -------------------
> 
> Hello,
> 
> This is probably not very relevant but let me just bring this up here
> since your manner of posting mail on the list seems to differ quite a
> bit from what most people on the list are doing.

It's not all that relevant as what I am doing here is not what anyone
else on this list is doing :)

> From my understanding, an email regarding to a certain patch or kernel
> issue should be sent to a list and not to a maintainer. This is
> however not the habit that people are in, though but instead, most
> people will send the email to the maintainers, then cc a few probably
> random mailing lists. This leads to emails flooding on the mailing
> list and consequently, beats the purpose of one ever having sent the
> mail to a list because lists will get increasingly difficult to
> follow.

So is the complaint that these stable -rc emails are drowning out seeing
other patches that are relevant?

If so, there are some wonderfully helpfuly headers that I add to all of
these emails so you can easily filter them away to /dev/null if you so
desire.

If not, then I don't understand the complaint.

> Is it just me who has made this observation? From your mail, it
> clearly looks and seems like you are following the above. Not
> following the above could make it very hard for a new kernel developer
> to pick up working on the kernel.

Have you read the Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst file?  If not,
please start there, as trying to read the firehose that is lkml all at
once is _not_ how anyone does kernel development.

thanks,

greg k-h