From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265215AbUBENQg (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Feb 2004 08:16:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265224AbUBENQg (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Feb 2004 08:16:36 -0500 Received: from 0x50c48ea5.adsl-fixed.tele.dk ([80.196.142.165]:10709 "EHLO morphic.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265215AbUBENQf (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Feb 2004 08:16:35 -0500 Subject: Re: Create a message board? From: LJN To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1075986903.18108.7.camel@lars.cheetah> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 14:15:03 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 02:08, raymond jennings wrote: > Would a message board based forum help to alleviate some of the mailing list > traffic by keeping information exchanges thread local (no pun intended)? > This way the developers specializing in a certain portion of the kernel > aren't swamped with information about something totally irrelevant, thus > they can focus on what they know. Example: File system programmers getting > messages relating to sound cards. > > I am interested in any feedback on this idea. > I'd say that's covered pretty much by the FAQ, section 3, point 23.: 23. Why don't you split the list, such as having one each for the development and stable series? (REG, by "hacksaw") It's true that the lkml is a high traffic list and can be a lot to handle. However, splitting the list wouldn't help, since most developers would just subscribe to both lists. In fact, there would then be extra traffic, because of the number of issues that hit both the development and stable kernels, or even farther back!