Cc: Giacomo A. Catenazzi <cate@...>, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...>, <Valdis.Kletnieks@...>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...>, David Miller <davem@...>
(a late reply - the merge window made me ignore this thread ;-)
* Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
so you agree with me on this one? Even though you clearly do not realize
it, you've in essence conceded my whole point.
The "off-lkml" practice makes us lose information, in a largely
irreversible way - and that's the end of the argument. Q.E.D.
just let me show you an example of the conflict of logic in your
argument:
on one side you have people who are _willing_ to participate, who'd like
to help out, who'd like to follow the development of Linux, but cannot
for some areas because it's split into 150 small mailing lists with no
coherent way to access and manage them.
on the other side you talk about people who are 'afraid' of
participating in Linux development, even though "they have the technical
means at their disposal to manage that volume". I.e., they "could"
participate, but they "dont want to" - for time constraints or just
excuses like "it's difficult to filter".
and your solution: you advocate destroying information by pulling it off
lkml for the sake of the _second_ group of people? That's perverse.
all the other arguments you say are just totally immaterial. Yes, we
could and should make lkml a better place (you could have volunteered to
summarize lkml discussions of your favorite topic on a separate list,
you could forward interesting topics to people you know dont read all of
it, etc. etc.,) but your proposed solution of _destroying lkml_ by
pulling off development into those lists is just about the most stupid
solution a person could have come up with.
Ingo
--
