From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751921AbZHLWAl (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:00:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751812AbZHLWAk (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:00:40 -0400 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:37964 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751668AbZHLWAk (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:00:40 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:00:30 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Pekka Enberg , Joe Perches , Ben Dooks , linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, David John , Erik Mouw , kernel list , Andrew Morton , David Miller , Krzysztof Halasa Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Add "L: linux-arm@vger.kernel.org" to ARM sections Message-ID: <20090812220029.GA1387@ucw.cz> References: <20090806124048.GD27773@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <1249563730.10297.13.camel@Joe-Laptop.home> <20090806133349.GF27773@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <1249568614.10297.20.camel@Joe-Laptop.home> <20090806150322.GX2080@trinity.fluff.org> <1249948147.8895.96.camel@Joe-Laptop.home> <20090812115520.GI24339@elf.ucw.cz> <20090812194838.GB12117@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <84144f020908121317g64551a2cu1b960f44ed5d0d9@mail.gmail.com> <20090812212502.GA24667@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090812212502.GA24667@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > > I haven't noticed a great rush of support for Joe's patch, which > > > could mean that people here really aren't that bothered - maybe > > > they just aren't "open list" zealots like some people seem to be. > > > > I for one support open lists because subscriber-only lists are a PITA > > Let me make this clear, yet again. The lists are *not* subscriber only > lists. We do NOT reject non-subscriber posts for no reason what so ever > (although it does seem to have happened, both Erik and myself both > contend that we have never rejected a mailing intentionally without > giving a reason - whether the original poster receives that reason is > a function of how buggy mailman is.) FAQ still states that cc-ing between l-k and lakml is unwelcome. Reason why people prefer open lists is that you can cc both l-k and the other relevant list. > Moreover, vger is trying to replicate the setup we had back in the > early 90s, which was found to be sub-optimal - we split the lists > into kernel stuff, userspace stuff and toolchain stuff to reduce the > amount of ignored postings - so that people specialising in ARM > userspace didn't have to wade through all the (vastly more) kernel > discussions. Unfortunately, the new setup at vger would mean re- > combining the lists. Maybe that's another factor that people don't > like? Don't know. I'd say that linux-arm@vger._kernel_.org is meant for kernel discussion, so no, it is not trying to mix kernel&userspace. > I have a theory. People only complain about moderated mailing lists > because they get messages telling them that their message has been > caught. If moderated mailing lists didn't send back that message, > (and the queue was processed in a timely manner) people would not > complain one bit. So it is probably far better if I bend mailman > such that it doesn't send out moderation messages - certainly to > anyone called Pavel. ;) Yes, those messages are indeed annoying. If you can indeed process queue in timely manner, and remove FAQ entry about not cc-ing between open lists and lakml, then yes, that would probably be good-enough emulation of open list. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html