From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755157AbZHFL4G (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2009 07:56:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755071AbZHFL4E (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2009 07:56:04 -0400 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:35484 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755061AbZHFL4B (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2009 07:56:01 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 12:55:53 +0100 From: Russell King To: Pavel Machek Cc: kernel list , davem@davemloft.net, mouw@nl.linux.org Subject: Re: linux-arm-kernel useless for development (was Re: Your message to Linux-arm-kernel awaits moderator approval) Message-ID: <20090806115553.GB27773@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20090804100051.GA17106@elf.ucw.cz> <20090804222840.GC18365@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20090806100700.GC31370@elf.ucw.cz> <20090806104421.GA27773@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20090806110246.GI31370@elf.ucw.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090806110246.GI31370@elf.ucw.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 01:02:47PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Thu 2009-08-06 11:44:21, Russell King wrote: > > > It appears the answer to that is no. People are free to subscribe to > > the one on vger, where they won't have to "put up" with me. However, > > it seems that people much prefer to subscribe to my lists, because that > > seems to be where the expertise is. > > > > Moreover, > > > > (a) when ever you have a problem, you go shouting and making public > > accusations without trying first to resolve the problem in private. > > When I tried asking in private, I was told to stop complaining or loose > my mailing list subscription. I'd prefer not to make that mistake again. ... in response to your whinging about the "headers matched a filter rule" mailman whining. I had enough of your whinging and whining in April, and I've certainly had enough now. But guess what? The problem eventually got fixed after working out what was going on. > > (c) you really don't understand that "held for moderation" is *not* > > rejection, but merely a case of mailman spotting something it doesn't > > like and letting a *human* deal with it rather than out-right rejecting > > it. > > For lakml, held for moderation _does_ mean it will return with > "posting rejected: no reason given" in few days. I have never seen any > other result, and have got perfectly reasonable messages rejected with > "no reason". So no, I do not believe there's cooperative human being > moderating lakml. http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20090730.090827.654305e1.en.html is your message that you're currently stiring the shit about. Oh look, it's in the archives. Oh, that means it must have been let through. > > I wonder, do you even know what happened to the message you're whinging > > about? Would you prefer that your message was silently dropped into > > /dev/null instead of having a chance of the issue being resolved? It > > strikes me that _that_ would be a better solution than all your > > whinging. > > So... your solution to broken mailing list is to silence everyone who > complains? No. My solution would have been to fix the mailing list had you not made this a public issue in an offensive way. -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: