* James Bottomley [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 11:56 -0800, David Miller wrote:

quoted

From: Ingo Molnar <redacted>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:08:47 +0100

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.

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.

People who want to manage bugs know what list to look on and contact 
about problems.

Dumping even more crap on lkml is not the answer.

I agree totally with David, and this goes for SCSI too.  If it's not 
reported on linux-scsi, there's a significant chance of us missing the 
bug report.  The fact that some people notice bugs go past on LKML and 
forward them to linux-scsi is a happy accident and not necessarily 
something to rely on.

LKML has 10-20x the traffic of linux-scsi and a much smaller signal to 
noise ratio.  Having a specialist list where all the experts in the 
field hangs out actually enhances our ability to fix bugs.

you are actually proving my point. People have to scan lkml for SCSI 
regressions _anyway_, because otherwise _you_ would miss them. In the 
case a user is fortunate enough to realize that a regression is SCSI 
related, and he is lucky enough to pre-select the SCSI mailing list in 
the first go, he might get a fix from you. That already reduces the 
number of useful bugreports by about an order of magnitude.

	Ingo