From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:38331 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262451AbUC1U3q (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Mar 2004 15:29:46 -0500 Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 12:29:20 -0800 From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: Future of linux-arch Message-Id: <20040328122920.404e5b37.davem@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20040328120133.D2825@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20040328120133.D2825@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Russell King Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 12:01:33 +0100 Russell King wrote: > It seems that me posting these two patches just to linux-arch has caused > some upset in the kernel community. In particular, Christoph Hellwig > is talking about publicising the address for this list. If he can't respect people's privacy, that shouldn't become our problem. If a group of people interested in 'foo' wish to discuss 'foo' on a mailing list amongst themselves, I don't see what can be wrong with that. Maybe I should feel compelled to CC: lkml every time I come up with an idea I wish to discuss with Linux or Andrew or one of the networking co-maintainers? See how rediculious such thinking is? Now, on the other hand, it may have in fact been more appropriate to discuss this particular change on lkml, flesh out the API issues publicly, _then_ move what you end up with to linux-arch so that arch people can code up implementations for their platforms for you. See, because this patch goes beyond arch issues, driver folks have to use these interfaces, so logically it appears that folks outside of the arch community should contribute to the design and review of said interfaces. Right?