Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758265AbXKNOJn (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:09:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753794AbXKNOJc (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:09:32 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:56477 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753049AbXKNOJa (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:09:30 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:08:47 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Randy Dunlap Cc: Andrew Morton , David Miller , protasnb@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-pcmcia@lists.infradead.org, linux-input@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs Message-ID: <20071114140847.GA11489@elte.hu> References: <20071113031553.3c7b5c16.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20071113.033946.114918709.davem@davemloft.net> <20071113034916.2556edd7.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20071113.035824.40509981.davem@davemloft.net> <20071113041259.79c9a8c5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20071113134029.GA30978@elte.hu> <20071113085514.3414aa52.rdunlap@xenotime.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071113085514.3414aa52.rdunlap@xenotime.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.1.7-deb -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1860 Lines: 39 * Randy Dunlap 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. this is a single kernel project that is released together as one codebase, so a central place of discussion is obvious and common-sense. 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. Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/