RE: [ACPI-sppt] merge acpi-support into acpi-devel?

RE: [ACPI-sppt] merge acpi-support into acpi-devel?

[Brown, Len]

The archive shows that overall, acpi-support gets 18% the traffic that acpi-devel gets.

There are newbie questions on LKML, and there is a FAQ to help them.
I don't see why we shouldn't follow that model.

The down-side of 2 lists is that people who post to acpi-devel will probably get better support, so one wonders what is the advantage of having 2 lists.

-Len

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sérgio Monteiro Basto [mailto:sergiomb-hHo3WeeoaswVhHzd4jOs4w@public.gmane.org] 
> Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2003 5:27 AM
> To: Brown, Len
> Cc: acpi support; acpi-devel
> Subject: Re: [ACPI-sppt] merge acpi-support into acpi-devel?
> 
> 
> On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 05:34, Len Brown wrote:
> > It would make my life simpler if 
> acpi-suport-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org were
> > merged into acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org and then disabled.
> > 
> > Does having two lists make life simpler for anybody?
> 
> For me, No. I think, the support mailing list, has more traffic and is
> for newbies and some people who want try install acpi. They 
> can get help
> here.
> The devel mailing list is for the people who want (try) help 
> developing
> acpi
> When I had time I read the 2 lists, in other times I just 
> read the devel
> one. I clean up the other.
> 
> thanks
> 
> > 
> > thanks,
> > -Len
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> SérgioMB
> email: sergiomb-hHo3WeeoaswVhHzd4jOs4w@public.gmane.org
> 
> Who gives me one shell, give me everything.
> 
> 


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf

Re: [ACPI-sppt] merge acpi-support into acpi-devel?

[Robert Vollmert]

Hello,

On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 10:48:31AM -0400, Brown, Len wrote:
> There are newbie questions on LKML, and there is a FAQ to help
> them. I don't see why we shouldn't follow that model.

just wanted to note that I support merging the lists. The combined
traffic isn't nearly large enough that it should pose a problem to
anyone. And if some people don't want to be bothered by newbie support
requests, they can just ignore those.

Having just one list also avoids having to worry about questions like
whether to CC: the support list when talking about a problem initially
discussed there to -devel, or how to get both the developers and those
affected by some issue to notice a patch, without reaching those that
are subscribed to both lists twice.

Cheers
Robert


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf

Re: [ACPI] RE: [ACPI-sppt] merge acpi-support into acpi-devel?

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 10:48:31AM -0400, Brown, Len wrote:
> The archive shows that overall, acpi-support gets 18% the traffic that acpi-devel gets.
> 
> There are newbie questions on LKML, and there is a FAQ to help them.
> I don't see why we shouldn't follow that model.
> 
> The down-side of 2 lists is that people who post to acpi-devel will
> probably get better support, so one wonders what is the advantage of
> having 2 lists.

Personally, I'm really not interested in any of the x86 shitty BIOS IRQ
routing type issues.  I'm interested in the following ACPI things:

 - It has to work on ia64 (that's my day job).
 - Solving some of the impedence mismatches between what ACPI expects
   and what the core kernel provides (eg the PCI config space accessing,
   down_timeout(), etc).
 - Refactoring the ACPI code to work better.

Not that I expect the lists to be arranged for my benefit, but would
anybody else be interested in a list-split along the lines of

 - acpi-x86 (for x86 specific problems)
 - acpi-core (for everything else)

-- 
"It's not Hollywood.  War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or
victory, it is about death.  I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies.
Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject?" -- Robert Fisk


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf

RE: [ACPI] RE: [ACPI-sppt] merge acpi-support into acpi-devel?

[Brown, Len]

> Personally, I'm really not interested in any of the x86 
> shitty BIOS IRQ routing type issues.

> - acpi-x86 (for x86 specific problems)
> - acpi-core (for everything else)

We need to work through the configuration issues on x86 to enable a
successful broad Linux ACPI deployment.  Based on the type of bugs that
are getting fixed today, I'm hopeful that these are deployment pains
that we'll fix and put behind us.  So in the long-term I don't think we
should need a special list to segregate them from other linux acpi
topics.

thanks,
-Len


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf

RE: [ACPI] RE: [ACPI-sppt] merge acpi-support into acpi-devel?

[Cagle, John (ISS-Houston)]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brown, Len [mailto:len.brown-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org] 
> To: Matthew Wilcox
> > Personally, I'm really not interested in any of the x86 
> > shitty BIOS IRQ routing type issues.
> 
> > - acpi-x86 (for x86 specific problems)
> > - acpi-core (for everything else)
> 
> We need to work through the configuration issues on x86 to enable a
> successful broad Linux ACPI deployment.  Based on the type of 
> bugs that
> are getting fixed today, I'm hopeful that these are deployment pains
> that we'll fix and put behind us.  So in the long-term I 
> don't think we
> should need a special list to segregate them from other linux acpi
> topics.
> 
> thanks,
> -Len

I agree - one list.  I think if separate the lists you'll just end up
with acpi-x86 getting 95% of the issues even if half of them are
problems in the core.  The vast majority of Linux ACPI implementations
will be x86 for a long time.  I think if it weren't for the laptop
users we probably wouldn't have ACPI for Linux, and it will be a long
time before you'll see a Itanium laptop.

Regards,
John


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf