From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao04.cox.net (fed1rmmtao04.cox.net [68.230.241.35]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85A552BDA2 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 02:49:01 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 09:48:58 -0700 From: Matt Porter To: Stephen Rothwell Message-ID: <20040924094858.A4823@home.com> References: <20040923164655.0472a8b9.sfr@ozlabs.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20040923164655.0472a8b9.sfr@ozlabs.org>; from sfr@ozlabs.org on Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 04:46:55PM +1000 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org Subject: Re: New mailing list specifically for embedded PowerPC development List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 04:46:55PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > After some representations, I have created linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org > for the discussion of all things to do with the development of Linux on > embedded PowerPC platforms. > > General Linux on PowerPC development discussions should, of course, remain > on this list. I need further guidelines on utilization of these lists. If embedded discussions are on linuxppc-embedded and general development discussions are on linuxppc-dev, then where do pmac-specific discussions belong? They certainly don't belong on linuxppc-dev since that is a specific class of machines that not everybody has interest in and generates a lot of traffic. Also, where do I post patches? I typically try to copy lkml and linuxppc-dev. Can we establish that all patches go to linuxppc-dev regardless of general/embedded/pmac? If not, it seems we'll have to divide patches up into the generic portion that affects everybody for linuxppc-dev and then the embedded/pmac portion to go elsewhere. That would be real waste and make it difficult to follow a patch set if it were split among lists with differing subscriber bases. Of course, if we send patches to linuxppc-dev for embedded/pmac specific items, then that guarantees the generation of discussion outside the stated scope of the list when people have objection/concerns about a patch. I personally feel that the split is unnecessary, but obviously others had strong feelings so I'm not going to needlessly object any longer. The most important thing at this point is to provide a bit more detail on the lists...and probably add a linuxppc-pmac list. :) -Matt