On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:50:30 +0200 Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 version to the i2c list then I end up reviewing an outdated patch, and 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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
