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

* 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_ 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.

or had <someone> been on netdev.

this is a single kernel project that is released together as one 
codebase, so a central place of discussion is obvious and common-sense.

Central doesn't have to mean one-and-only-one-list-for-everything.

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.

So you have a preferred method of handling email.  Please don't
force it on the rest of us.

I'll plan to use lkml-list-only when you have convinced DaveM to drop
all of the other mailing lists at vger.kernel.org.  Yeah, sure.

---
~Randy