* Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > (and this is in no way directed at the networking folks - it holds
> > for all of us. I have one main complaint about networking: the
> > separate netdev list is a bad idea - networking regressions should
> > be discussed and fixed on lkml, like most other subsystems are. Any
> > artificial split of the lk discussion space is bad.)
> but here I disagree. LKML is already too busy and noisy. Major
> subsystems need their own discussion areas.
That's a stupid argument. We lose much more by forced isolation of
discussion than what we win by having less traffic! It's _MUCH_ easier
to narrow down information (by filter by threads, by topics, by people,
etc.) than it is to gobble information together from various fractured
sources. We learned it _again and again_ that isolation of kernel
discussions causes bad things.
In fact this thread is the very example: David points out that on netdev
some of those bugs were already discussed and resolved. Had it been all
on lkml we'd all be aware of it.
this is a single kernel project that is released together as one
codebase, so a central place of discussion is obvious and common-sense.
so please stop this "too busy and too noisy" nonsense already. It was
nonsense 10 years ago and it's nonsense today. In 10 years the kernel
grew from a 1 million lines codebase to an 8 million lines codebase, so
what? Deal with it and be intelligent about filtering your information
influx instead of imposing a hard pre-filtering criteria that restricts
intelligent processing of information.