From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 00:02:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 00:02:50 -0500 Received: from nat-pool-rdu.redhat.com ([66.187.233.200]:33909 "EHLO devserv.devel.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 00:02:49 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 00:12:34 -0500 From: Pete Zaitcev Message-Id: <200302130512.h1D5CY909638@devserv.devel.redhat.com> To: Crispin Cowan Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: What went wrong with LSM, was: Re: [BK PATCH] LSM changes for 2.5.59 In-Reply-To: References: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>>And here we see _the_ problem with the LSM process. LSM wasn't >>>developed as part of the broad kernel community (lkml) but on >>>a rather small, almost private list. >>> >>Many of the things that you are saying in this discussion are untrue. >>[...] >>The bulk of the development process was carried out for more than two >>years on the LSM development mailing list, which is fully public and open >>to anyone. It is not "almost private", whatever that is supposed to mean. This is a situation, descibed by Douglas Adams in the opening chapters of "Hitchiker's Guide to Galaxy". You put the vital info somewhere, and when someone (who has to suffer if he does not see it) fails to retrieve the info, it gets his own fault. It all was in the open, so what else is to be desired? I used to be super irritated by separate lists. Now I'm a member of linux-usb-devel, uml-devel, sparclinux, and god knows what else. Yes, they are unavoidable. Still, it is important to keep linux-kernel at least somewhat informed. IMHO. -- Pete