Re: 2.6.11-rc2-mm1: SuperIO scx200 breakage

[Evgeniy Polyakov]

On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 09:00 -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:59:17 +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov
> <johnpol@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 10:14 +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 01:35:56AM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > > > I have one rule - if noone answers that it means noone objects,
> > > > or it is not interesting for anyone, and thus noone objects.
> > >
> > > That's simply not true.  The amount of patches submitted is extremly
> > > huge and the reviewers don't have time to look at everythning.
> > >
> > > If no one replies it simply means no one has looked at it in enough
> > > detail to comment yet.
> > 
> > That is why I resent it several times.
> > Then I asked for inclusion.
> > 
> > I never send it to lkml just because simple static/non static + module
> > name
> > discussion in lkml already overflowed into more than 20 messages...
> 
> Well, not everyone is subscribed to lm_sensors mailing list but
> nonetheless are interested when a new subsystem is introduced into the
> kernel. There several established subsystems (network, USB, ide) whose
> maintainers people trust either because of the good track record or
> because it affects small number of people so the main discussion is
> kept on special lists. But even then most patches are presented on
> LKML when issues ironed out on special list.
> 
> With a new subsystem it is wise to present it to LKML so it gets wider coverage.
> 

Khm-khm, if we will always wait untill everyone will comment the code or
even initial
design, then nothing will be created at all.

Btw, where was comments about w1, kernel connector and acrypto? 
They were presented several times in lkml and all are completely new
subsystems.
Should I stop developing just because I did not get comments?

Above discussion was not borned because it is new subsystem, btw...


Ok, I want to thank everyone for discussion.
I believe that new subsystem must be discussed in specific mail lists
before
it goes mainstream, but not necessarily in lkml.
But if it really changes a lot of things, then of course it should be
presented 
in lkml.

Thank you.

-- 
        Evgeniy Polyakov

Crash is better than data corruption -- Arthur Grabowski

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part