From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] nfsd4: complete enforcement of 4.1 op ordering Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:10:07 -0400 Message-ID: <20100427181007.GN30729@fieldses.org> References: <1271946744-5877-1-git-send-email-bfields@citi.umich.edu> <20100422144831.GA5926@fieldses.org> <20100423212411.GC1964@fieldses.org> <4BD6F775.2050801@panasas.com> <20100427150103.GC30729@fieldses.org> <4BD706E3.4070608@panasas.com> <20100427161244.GG30729@fieldses.org> <4BD70F5F.7080409@panasas.com> <20100427163404.GH30729@fieldses.org> <4BD71483.1090604@panasas.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: Benny Halevy Return-path: Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:36825 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751590Ab0D0SKI (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:10:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4BD71483.1090604@panasas.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 07:44:51PM +0300, Benny Halevy wrote: > On Apr. 27, 2010, 19:34 +0300, "J. Bruce Fields" wrote: > > The main lists we've been using are: > > > > linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org > > nfsv4@linux-nfs.org > > pnfs@linux-nfs.org > > > > This seems to be confusing. We've talked before about transitioning > > away from one (probably nfsv4@linux-nfs.org). Maybe now's the time to > > start. > > I'm all for it. > Maybe it's time to fold the pnfs list into linux-nfs too. So, looking back at what we did for the sourceforge list: - We added something to the footer saying the list is deprecated. (But if we wanted to be more obnoxious, we could add it to the top of each message.) - We subscribed the new list (linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org) to the old list, I guess so newbie bug reports sent to the old list wouldn't get lost. Anyone want to object to starting that process for nfsv4@linux-nfs.org? What about pnfs@linux-nfs.org? --b.