Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 09:42:23 +0930 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: "Paul Richards.width" <paul@originative.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, Chuck Robey <chuckr@picnic.mat.net>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Committers <cvs-committers@freebsd.org> Subject: Where to discuss architectural issues (was: How about building modules along with the kernel? (was: cvs commit: src/sys/modules/syscons/fire fire_saver.c src/sys/modules/syscons/rain rain_saver.c src/sys/modules/syscons/warp warp_saver.c)) Message-ID: <20000427094223.F43932@freebie.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <3906CF74.1AEBFD09@originative.co.uk> References: <20000426124729.D40207@freebie.lemis.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0004252346240.331-100000@picnic.mat.net> <20000425234016.D1022@dragon.nuxi.com> <20000426164824.D43932@freebie.lemis.com> <3906CF74.1AEBFD09@originative.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday, 26 April 2000 at 12:13:56 +0100, Paul Richards.width wrote: Richards.width? > Greg Lehey wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, 25 April 2000 at 23:40:16 -0700, David O'Brien wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 11:48:27PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: >>>> Tell you what. Let the discussion carry on. If there's no movement by >>>> Friday, I'll stick the offer back up. I just want to insure that it >>>> doesn't die (again) by being stuck onto a proposal for too grand a design. >>> >>> The discussion should be moved to freebsd-arch then. >>> >>> FOLLOWS UP DIRECTED THERE. PLEASE *REMOVE* cvs-all & cvs-committers from >>> this thread. >> >> In theory, that's all well and good. But look what wc -l tells me: >> >> 679 cvs-all >> 1739 freebsd-current >> 481 freebsd-arch >> >> cvs-all doesn't appear to be a real mailing list, be we all know that >> there are about 200 people there. That means nearly 900 people on the >> (mutually exclusive) cvs lists, at least another 800 over in -current, >> less than 500 in -arch. You can't force a committer to join -arch, >> which is why I still prefer -committers. > > But the reason that not all committers join arch is because not all > committers are "arch" hackers. That's one reason. Another is inertia. > There used to be (still is but everyone ignores it) a policy that > discussions should not take place on any committers lists because > they are for the notification of commits and nothing more. There are > a myriad other lists for holding technical discussions. Agreed. But I still think we're missing something. It wasn't that long ago that we did that sort of thing on -hackers, which has suffered too much bloat to be useful any more. I once discussed a change on -hackers, at a time when -arch was a shadow of a list, and then committed, to be immediately asked to remove the fix again because people on -committers didn't want it. That was when we decided to put this kind of discussion on -arch. I think -arch is the right place. I'd just like to make sure that -committers doesn't get left out, and the best way I can think of to do that is to add -committers to the -arch list. Greg -- Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000427094223.F43932>