Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753657AbYA1QMF (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:12:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752765AbYA1QLy (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:11:54 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:60208 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753249AbYA1QLx (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:11:53 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:11:34 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Mikael Pettersson Cc: Tino Keitel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: 2.6.24 regression: Wake On Lan in sky2 broken on Mac mini Message-ID: <20080128161134.GA25834@elte.hu> References: <20080128002934.GA6354@dose.home.local> <18333.37002.749771.524523@harpo.it.uu.se> <20080128125535.GE32496@elte.hu> <18333.55970.74841.660462@harpo.it.uu.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18333.55970.74841.660462@harpo.it.uu.se> 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=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2309 Lines: 48 * Mikael Pettersson wrote: > Ok, I can see how my overly terse statement could be interpreted in > this way, and I apologize for that. > > However, it _is_ a fact that there is a proliferation of specialized > mailing lists, and it is also a fact that many developers _only_ read > those lists. I'm in no way defending this behaviour, on the contrary I > probably dislike it as much as you do. But we can't ignore it. i'm not worried about that aspect: those developers either write perfect code that never needs any tester or user assistance (in which case our discussion is moot), or if it's buggy then these developers will eventually be replaced with more capable people who are helping their testers and users more actively by reading lkml and responding there. What we must not do is to give in to the splintering and laziness and actively _chase people away_ from lkml. > I should of course have written something like "please cc: > " instead of the stupid "wrong mailing" list comment. yeah, thanks, that will do fine. _Helping_ subsystem maintainers become aware of problems and cross-Cc:-ing to whatever preferred email alias they use (be that their own mailing list address or netdev@) is a necessary and positive feature of lkml: almost by definition the user has little idea about what is wrong with their kernel, and if the mail is unspecific enough or labeled incorrectly then it's easy for a maintainer to miss it. (It's already a very good first step when user know that the problem area is their kernel to begin with.) Putting the "weight of initial discovery" on to the user on the other hand is actively harmful. It will only result in users picking the wrong list and being ignored there, upstream maintainers not getting a full picture about what kind of per subsystem bugs people are experiencing, etc., etc. The only thing that works in the long run is to make the private development email aliases _opt-in_ feature, and to always have a main body of information: lkml. 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/