Re: using LKML for subsystem development

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>
Cc: Giacomo A. Catenazzi <cate@...>, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...>, <Valdis.Kletnieks@...>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...>, David Miller <davem@...>
Date: Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 10:25 am

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/
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Linux 2.6.24, Linus Torvalds, (Thu Jan 24, 7:17 pm)
Re: Linux 2.6.24, Jan Engelhardt, (Sun Feb 3, 8:35 am)
Re: Linux 2.6.24, Linus Torvalds, (Thu Jan 24, 7:41 pm)
Re: Linux 2.6.24, Giacomo A. Catenazzi, (Fri Jan 25, 5:10 am)
Re: Linux 2.6.24, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Jan 25, 7:35 am)
Re: Linux 2.6.24, , (Fri Jan 25, 5:58 am)
Re: Linux 2.6.24, Rafael J. Wysocki, (Fri Jan 25, 7:58 am)
Re: Linux 2.6.24, Giacomo A. Catenazzi, (Fri Jan 25, 8:34 am)
Re: Linux 2.6.24, Stefan Richter, (Fri Jan 25, 7:50 pm)
Re: Linux 2.6.24, , (Fri Jan 25, 11:19 pm)
Re: using LKML for subsystem development, Stefan Richter, (Sat Jan 26, 10:25 am)
Re: using LKML for subsystem development, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Feb 1, 5:40 am)
Re: using LKML for subsystem development, Stefan Richter, (Fri Feb 1, 3:53 pm)
Re: using LKML for subsystem development, David Miller, (Sat Jan 26, 10:07 am)
Re: using LKML for subsystem development, Stefan Richter, (Sat Jan 26, 10:45 am)
Re: using LKML for subsystem development, Stefan Richter, (Sat Jan 26, 9:31 am)
[PATCH] linux-2.6.24/drivers/hid/hid-input.c, Philipp Matthias Hahn, (Fri Jan 25, 6:11 am)
Re: [PATCH] linux-2.6.24/drivers/hid/hid-input.c, Jiri Kosina, (Fri Jan 25, 6:30 am)