On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 10:31:53PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > 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 > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]> > > > 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 :)
Alright, I'll keep CC'ing tons of you then ! I'd also appreciate if those contributing will also try CC those in this email except David Miller of course, our benevolent postmaster. Luis
