From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bill Gatliff Subject: Re: [RFC 0/6] Proposal for a Generic PWM Device API Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:15:10 -0500 Message-ID: <48EFA9BE.1070806@billgatliff.com> References: <1223608819.8157.127.camel@pasglop> <48EED4D1.2040506@billgatliff.com> <20081010093642.GA10579@linux-sh.org> <48EF60B6.20409@billgatliff.com> <20081010172837.GB10579@linux-sh.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20081010172837.GB10579@linux-sh.org> Sender: linux-embedded-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Paul Mundt Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org, Linux/PPC Development Paul Mundt wrote: > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 09:03:34AM -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote: >> Paul Mundt wrote: >>> This is likely because some of those lists are subscribers only, so cross >>> posting is poor form. It makes sense to keep the discussion in one place, >>> and to send notification messages with a pointer to the list archives to >>> the other lists so folks can jump in if they really care. Splitting it >>> out doesn't help matters in the least, but unfortunately this is what >>> seems to happen the most when subscribers only lists are involved. >> Alright, then maybe I can do this when I post the "final" changeset for review: >> cross-post to lkml and linux-embedded, and then post one short note on l-a-k, >> linuxppc-dev and elsewhere that refers those interested to the actual content. >> I can live with that. >> > linux-arm-kernel is the only one that is subscribers only out of that > list, according to MAINTAINERS. If rmk wants to mandate a broken policy, > that's perfectly fine, just don't expect the rest of the kernel community > to tolerate it. Problem is, the rest of the kernel community is the one who takes it in the, ahem, server when I cross-post. And since my reference platform is currently ARM, I can't leave l-a-k out. b.g. -- Bill Gatliff bgat@billgatliff.com