Re: [PATCH] I2C: add support for the PCF8575 chip

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:50:30 +0200 Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org> wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
> 
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:58:14 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:32:35 +0200
> > "Bart Van Assche" <bart.vanassche@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Bart Van Assche
> > > 
> > > Add support for the PCF8575 I2C chip.
> > 
> > I'll comment on this 17-day-old patch.
> > 
> > Jean, this illustrates why explicitly steering people *away* from lkml or
> > from any other mailing list is a poor idea.  If Bart has posted an updated
> > version to the i2c list then I end up reviewing an outdated patch, and
> > probably duplicating other people's comments.
> 
> You're unfair. I can use the same argument the other way around: if
> Bart did not post to the wrong list in the first place, then there
> would have been no risk for you to miss any update.

Sure.  But what I was referring to was the recommendation that submitters
explicitly _remove_ lkml from the cc.

> I stand on my initial affirmation that sending all patches, bug reports
> etc. to LKML when more specialized lists exist, is a bad idea. Maybe it
> makes you happy because you want to know everything that's going on in
> every area on the kernel, and are lucky enough to be able to actually
> do that and survive. But for others, it's essentially wasting their
> time (not to mention bandwidth and disk space.)
> 
> If you are so interested about i2c patches, then I'd suggest that you
> simply subscribe to the i2c list.

I am subscribed to a large number of lists, but I don't read them.  I keep
them around so I can go find and reply to the original email thread when a
fishy patch turns up in the tree.

But I'm not just talking about me.  Consider the example of a random lkml
lurker who has a PCF8575 and who can end up using an old version of the
code.

> > googling for 'PCF8575 Assche' indicates that he has not sent an updated
> > patch.  Perhaps he was discouraged by your quite unconstructive response.
> 
> Actually Bart resent his patch to the i2c list 3 days later, twice. But
> it was probably the exact same patch (it didn't mention any changes at
> least.) There's no reason why Bart would have sent an updated patch as
> he did not receive feedback at this point. I fail to see how my
> response would have had any influence in that respect.
> 
> Anyway, thanks for the review. I didn't have much time left for reviews
> these last few weeks.
> 
> Still... I am worried that you, Andrew Morton, co-top-maintainer of the
> Linux 2.6 kernel, one of most brilliant kernel developers we have,
> waste your time doing the initial review of a random i2c patch that
> about anyone remotely involved in kernel development would have been
> able to review. There's something wrong here.

It goes like this:

- patch floats past, I save it

- a week or three later I check to see if it is still unmerged

- if so, go look at the lkml thread

- if nothing much has happened then I'll assume that it got lost and will
  pick it up so that it gets consideration

If the discussion got steered to a different list and lkml got removed from
that discussion then I end up wasting everyone's time.