* James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 11:56 -0800, David Miller wrote: > > From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> > > Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:08:47 +0100 > > > > > 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. > > > > That's a rediculious argument. > > > > One other reason these bugs are resolved, is that the networking > > developers only need to subscribe to netdev and not have to listen > > to all the noise on lkml. > > > > People who want to manage bugs know what list to look on and contact > > about problems. > > > > Dumping even more crap on lkml is not the answer. > > I agree totally with David, and this goes for SCSI too. If it's not > reported on linux-scsi, there's a significant chance of us missing the > bug report. The fact that some people notice bugs go past on LKML and > forward them to linux-scsi is a happy accident and not necessarily > something to rely on. > > LKML has 10-20x the traffic of linux-scsi and a much smaller signal to > noise ratio. Having a specialist list where all the experts in the > field hangs out actually enhances our ability to fix bugs. you are actually proving my point. People have to scan lkml for SCSI regressions _anyway_, because otherwise _you_ would miss them. In the case a user is fortunate enough to realize that a regression is SCSI related, and he is lucky enough to pre-select the SCSI mailing list in the first go, he might get a fix from you. That already reduces the number of useful bugreports by about an order of magnitude. Ingo _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
