Ingo Molnar wrote:A better analogy to subsystem development discussions is -mm rather than Linus' tree. [...] [...] I would like this variant the most. All firewire bugs would be closed by now. :-) Correct. Wrong. The topic mailinglists are not about closed circles. At least not those which do not require subscription and which have proper list archives. These mailinglists are... ...not an excuse for anything. They lower the barrier for people to participate. Notably people - who are afraid of subscribing to a high-volume mailinglist (even if they have the technical means at their disposal to manage that volume), - who have low bandwidth internet service, - whose mail service provider doesn't server-side, user-configurable filtering, - who don't want to come up with sophisticated mail filters, - who don't want to reconfigure filters or temporarily unsubscribe when they go on a trip to locations without cheap connectivity, but most importantly, - who are interested a lot in how gadget xyz works (and can contribute a lot due to their knowledge in that field) but don't know much about and/or aren't interested a lot in the Linux kernel (yet). The linux1394-devel mailinglist for example is by far not only dedicated to Linux IEEE 1394 kernel driver development. It is also about development and maintenance of Linux IEEE 1394 userspace libraries and application programs. Should we separate these topics out into a different mailinglist? No, we shouldn't, because these discussions are often closely related. Actually we have a similar problem like you are pointing out about LKML vs. kernel subsystem lists: We regularly have discussions jumping around linux1394-devel, linux1394-user, libdc1394-devel, coriander-devel, coriander-user, kino-dev, and even linux-scsi. So, there is traffic which is on-topic at linux1394-devel but would be very off-topic on linux-kernel. BTW, you misplaced the quotation marks in >>"Domain experts" hiding away in caves<<. These experts exist, but the "caves" generally don't, if we ignore non-subscriber lists and lists without usable archives for a moment. I as IEEE 1394 kernel subsystem maintainer would be hopelessly incapable to get anything done if there weren't the sort of people helping me who don't know much about the kernel but a lot about IEEE 1394; along with the very very few people who know and are interested in both. That latter sort of people had been 0 (read: zero) at times. Granted. But we can't fully replace lists like linux1394-devel by LKML. (linux1394-devel is not an ideal example in this discussion though because what we break, breaks only the IEEE 1394 subsystems but nothing else. --- Correction: We did break suspend/resume at two occasions or so on systems which have one of our low-level drivers loaded. Hard to tell whether channeling all of linux1394-devel's discussions over LKML would have had an effect on this.) Back to the -mm analogy: What about a meta list which is subscribed to the lot of subsystem lists? People who are interested in the Linux kernel as a whole could subscribe to that aggregated meta list. Of course this would only fully work with the subsystem development lists which don't require subscription to post. -- Stefan Richter -=====-==--- ---= ==-=- http://arcgraph.de/sr/ --
| H. Peter Anvin | Re: [RFC 00/15] x86_64: Optimize percpu accesses |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 008/196] Chinese: add translation of volatile-considered-harmful.txt |
| Greg KH | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Alex Chiang | [PATCH 1/4] Remove path attribute from sgi_hotplug |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Eric Dumazet | Re: [PATCH 3/3] Convert the UDP hash lock to RCU |
