Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760970AbXKNUte (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:49:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753691AbXKNUtX (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:49:23 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:36205 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753407AbXKNUtV (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:49:21 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:48:40 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: David Miller Cc: rdunlap@xenotime.net, akpm@linux-foundation.org, 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: <20071114204840.GB20606@elte.hu> References: <20071113134029.GA30978@elte.hu> <20071113085514.3414aa52.rdunlap@xenotime.net> <20071114140847.GA11489@elte.hu> <20071114.115601.00715073.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071114.115601.00715073.davem@davemloft.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: 2132 Lines: 56 * David Miller wrote: > From: Ingo Molnar > 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. what noise? If someone really wants networking discussions only, use this procmail rule: :0 HBc * .*net: * sched-patches to separate it into an extra folder and use "net: " as an agreed upon Subject line if you really want to narrow things down. (But there would still be all the other mail just in case the developer has to look at the wider picture. There would be no "I'm only subscribed to netdev" excuse. ) but there should still be one central repository for all kernel discussions - just like there is one central repository for all kernel code. > People who want to manage bugs know what list to look on and contact > about problems. i think that's the problem. Developers (and here i dont mean you) who want to do "development only", without being exposed to the global state of the kernel and without being exposed to bugs. I think that's the basic mindset difference. That is one of the factor that is causing assymetric allocation of developers and the increasing detachment from reality. > Dumping even more crap on lkml is not the answer. that "crap" that i'd like to see dumped upon lkml would be netdev traffic mainly - most of the other kernel development lists (and i'm subscribed to many of them) are low-traffic. netdev is the main reason why we cannot do a "one common discussion forum" approach. 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/