From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31470996 for ; Thu, 8 May 2014 18:15:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7D6620327 for ; Thu, 8 May 2014 18:15:57 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <536BC9D7.8030104@infradead.org> Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 11:15:51 -0700 From: Randy Dunlap MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dan Carpenter , Andy Lutomirski References: <20140506195752.GV26890@mwanda> In-Reply-To: <20140506195752.GV26890@mwanda> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Reviewing new API/ABI List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 05/06/2014 12:57 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > In olden times we used to have LKML for this sorts of discussion. Last > year we decided that LKML was officially useless in terms of anyone > reading it. We decided we would re-use the kernel-summit list for this > kind of API discussion. That seems weird to me since I had never heard about that quirk^W information. I wouldn't expect ksummit-discuss to be used for API discussions. > The problem with LKML is that everyone CCs it for everything. The rule > for the new list was going to be that you couldn't cross post or CC any > other list for the discussion. > > In the end the list never got off the ground. > > Part of the reason it failed is that no one is going to CC there own > patches to the list for extra scrutiny. Why ask for punishment? -- ~Randy