On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 12:39:58PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > Ok, how about writing up a summary of the proposal, listing the name > > changes you want to make, and why, and post it to lkml so that > > everyone has some advance notice of what will happen. They can then > > discuss anything that we might not have caught. > > Hm, looks like this list is the adequate place for such a discussion > (and I'm glad that everyone finally took part of it, because it is so > important). > > Posting the proposal alone on LKML is likely to duplicate the exchanges > we had here. On the other hand, adding all the suggestions Philip > Pokorny, Mark Hoffman and Mark Studebaker together with my answers will > make the post long and possibly hard to read, and I am not sure people > will want to read it. > > Would it be correct to post a summary together with a link to this > thread? That way, people who want to know more can read the whole story > in a convenient form. I doubt that would be ok. We need to let the world know why we are changing a public interface during a "stable" kernel series. Remember, there are other users of the sysfs sensor interface other than lmsensors. So I think a summary of what we want to change, and why to lkml is still necessary. If enough people object, we might be stuck with what we currently have... thanks, greg k-h
