Re: RFC: switching "THE REST" in MAINTAINERS away from

[Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>]

On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 09:05:12AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 10:11:48AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > - due to the sheer volume of messages, LKML is generally seen as useless for
> > >   holding any actual discussions
> > 
> > I have never had that impression of LKML.
> 
> Same here, I am actually reading through lkml, although superficially
> skipping over some bits, and definitively starting discussions there.

Same here. I used to have a procmail filter to deliver lkml to its own
box a decade ago and I figured that I lost contact with what was happening
so I removed that filter so that I move all these messages manually several
times a day after scrolling over them (a single key in mutt). This way
every day I can have a quick glance at all subjects there, that's how I
discover new topics, patch series, discussions etc. I think that a non
negligible number of LKML subscribers are there for this exact reason.

I would personally miss these messages if they would not be delivered
there anymore :-/ And I don't think that the situation would significantly
improve in the short term anyway due to this.

> Restricting access to the new lkml is not acceptable.  How about
> restricting access to all lists for gmail addresses if gmail is so
> broken?

Or even simpler, flush the queue very often and make it clear that gmail
is not a reliable recipiet for LKML. The trouble will self-regulate.

Just my two cents,
Willy