Re: New vger mailing list request - linux-firmware

Greg Kroah-Hartman
2017-06-08T20:32:58Z

On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 01:25:17PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Do users deserve the amount of silly regressions and issues we've seen
> >> over the years on firmware_class ? Would yet-another mailing list help
> >> ? I think so.
> >
> > No.
> >
> > Boutique mailing lists are generally a _bad_ thing. All it means that
> > there's an increasingly small "in group" that thinks that they
> > generate consensus beause nobody disagrees with their small boutique
> > list, because nobody else even _sees_ that small list.
> >
> > We should only have mailing lists if they really merit the volume, and
> > are big enough that there are lots of users.
>
> Even many device drivers tend to have mailing lists. While I see the
> "in group" thing being a bad thing, I would say a few folks would be a
> bit disturbed if they were requested to subscribe and read lkml to get
> their driver updates they need to review. Its not clear to me where
> the distinction should be made though. I tend to agree perhaps a
> *vger* mailing list is not in merit for firmware_class, its not
> obvious to me say an infradead.org list might not be in order.

This is infrastructure that drivers use, not something huge and big that
warrents a whole separate mailing list. Come on now, it's not that big
of a chunk of code, no matter how complex the beast might be :)

greg k-h

>
> Luis