On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:07 AM Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [sending this a second time with a different "From" address to get it on > the list; sorry!] > > Lo! > > On 08.02.22 20:24, Donald Zickus wrote: > > > > It has been awhile since we changed how this mailing list is used. As > > folks have noticed, we have increased traffic significantly over the > > past couple of years to reflect the activity Red Hat developers are > > performing on the Fedora kernel. > > > > My question to this list is around the thoughts of this activity: > > * Is there too much noise? Should we throttle back? > > * is the volume ok? Folks have good filters? > > * Other suggestions on how we use this list? > > > > Trying to continue to make this mailing list useful. > > > > Thanks for any feedback! > > The mails are not a big problem for me, but they are related to a bigger > question that again and again pops up in my head: > > Is it really a good idea to have all those totally RHEL specific patches > in the Fedora rpm (and thus discussed here)? And does that approach mean > that Red Hat is special, or are willing to include downstream patches > for other distros as well? Say Amazon Linux? How is this handled in > other packages? Or is it an issue that only happens with the kernel? > It is a trade off, and I think one that tends to be worthwhile. The patches that are included and discussed here also typically include special casing with #ifdef CONFIG_RHEL_DIFFERENCES and the code path does not actually impact Fedora kernel users. More importantly, those patches are backed out on fedora stable branches, so they only exist in Rawhide. By including these and the process that brings them in to begin with, we also get a much larger group of the RHEL kernel developers, QA, etc paying attention to upstream and fixing issues before they make it to a stable release. > Sure, Fedora is mainly sponsored by Red Hat and all Fedora kernel > developers are working for Red Hat, but somehow it feels to me like a > boundary was overstepped. I can see that point of view, and I do understand it. There is a tradeoff involved. While it does mean some additional overhead in dealing with patches that do not impact Fedora, in return we do get some additional kernel dev attention when we run into real issues. I have been a Fedora kernel maintainer for a rather long time at this point, and I can tell you that it used to be easier to get help with issues from outside resources because everyone internally was busy and the Fedora tree was not included in their responsibility list. This has gotten considerably better since we moved to the ark process, because suddenly the ark tree is on people's responsibility list. While there is a defined workflow, there are improvements being made over time, and we are still looking at places the current process can be improved. This is why the thread was started. Is the mailing list interaction where it should be from an automation point of view? Are we sending too much? Not enough? Justin > Ciao, Thorsten > _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list -- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
