Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 10:48:19 +0100 From: "Paul Richards.width" <paul@originative.co.uk> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, Chuck Robey <chuckr@picnic.mat.net>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Committers <cvs-committers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: 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: <39080CE3.FC151E08@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> <20000427094223.F43932@freebie.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greg Lehey wrote: > > On Wednesday, 26 April 2000 at 12:13:56 +0100, Paul Richards.width wrote: > > Richards.width? > Something's screwed with Netscape, it looks like it's not recognising the end of the string, sometimes it puts garbage after my name. I could really do with a reliable mailer but I need something more than Mutt because I get a lot of business mail aimed at Outlook users and Mutt is too painful for non-text mail. I've been trying out Netscape for the last few months and it's one of the worst pieces of software I've ever used on a Unix platform :-( > > 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. I think we should be more vigilant about these things or the lists are going to become worthless. It's already getting hard to keep up with all the important discussions because they're scattered amongst too many places. I think there needs to be a clear distinction between developer lists and support lists. At the moment, the specialist lists, such as net or scsi, are acting as catchall lists for those technical areas and if you want to see the development discussions you have to weed them out of the much more voluminous support discussions. When time is short I'd like to keep up with the technical discussions first and deal with support questions later. Personally, I think all technical discussion should move to arch so that all the active developers can see what's going on in other parts of the system. The argument that e.g. the SCSI developers want somewhere peaceful to thrash out their ideas first doesn't really hold much water because unless they have a closed list their "peaceful place" rapidly becomes another noisy support forum and as soon as the development is committed they face the same barrage of questions from committers as they would have done anyway so they may as well have discussed the issues in arch in the first place. There's also some unecessary fragmentation and duplication. For instance, the issue of cross-compilation affects a lot of people but it's being discussed separately on the sparc list, the ppc list and the committers list. These are the problems of growth but they're becoming very real and need to be thought about. Paul. 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?39080CE3.FC151E08>