* Randy Dunlap [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:08:47 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote:

quoted

* Randy Dunlap [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

(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_ 

                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^

quoted

easier to narrow down information (by filter by threads, by topics, 

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

quoted

by people, etc.) than it is to gobble information together from 

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

quoted

various fractured sources. We learned it _again and again_ that 

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

quoted

isolation of kernel discussions causes bad things.

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

quoted

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.

or had <someone> been on netdev.

countered by the underlined sentences above, just in case you missed it.

	Ingo