From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eppat.qlogic.com ([63.170.40.2] helo=EPEXCH01.qlogic.org) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1DOGNK-0000Nc-Dl for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 10:40:23 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:39:58 -0500 From: Steve Wahl To: "Artem B. Bityuckiy" Message-ID: <20050420143958.GI1915@qlogic.com> References: <200504200940.30757.ian@brightstareng.com> <1114006991.32582.11.camel@sauron.oktetlabs.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1114006991.32582.11.camel@sauron.oktetlabs.ru> Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Ian McDonnell Subject: Re: Suggestion: Give JFFS its own mail list. List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 06:23:11PM +0400, Artem B. Bityuckiy wrote: > On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 09:40 -0400, Ian McDonnell wrote: > > Is it time to give JFFS/JFFS2 a mail list of its own? > > > > I am a user intested in MTD and below but not jffs, and > > it seams like there's a lot of jffs adn jffs/mtd discussion on > > the MTD list. > > > > Decoupling the two mail lists may indirectly help improve the > > MTD/mtd-clent (JFFS2,YAFFS,Char-IO/Block-IO) API by focusing > > more on the abstract interface and less on application specifics. > > > IMO<\stress>, the list is very low-volume to split it. > Personally I have no problems seeing discussions of things to which I am > not involved. But actual MTD issues seem to get ignored, perhaps because the list is so swampped with JFFS issues. At least I think that's the reason I was completely ignored when I posted (twice) about a bug with AMD 29LV800 parts (and thus gave up)... --> Steve