On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 00:31 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:I'm just outlining the possible solutions; shutting it down wasn't the one I advocated. One can argue that janitorial changes with enough intrinsic value tend to get done anyway regardless of whether we have the project or not. The problem is that there's something in the way all of this is working that's causing politeness to get short shrift. In turn that's giving lkml a larger than normal reputation for being a free for all dog fight and discouraging potential contributors from coming forwards. Appeals to be politer tend to only work in the short term (having given quite a few of them). I think we're developing a root cause problem in the way we recruit people to work in the kernel and we have to think about fixing it there. James --
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Arjan van de Ven | [Announce] Development release 0.1 of the LatencyTOP tool |
| Andrew Morton | -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 020/196] IDE: Convert from class_device to device for ide-tape |
git: | |
| Tantilov, Emil S | RE: [PATCH] net: sk_alloc() should not blindly overwrite memory |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 0/37] dccp: Feature negotiation - last call for comments |
