From: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> To: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net> Cc: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Yoshinori Sato <ysato@users.sourceforge.jp>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, "D. Jeff Dionne" <jeff@uClinux.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] MAINTAINERS: remove linux-sh list from non-arch/sh sections Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 18:51:37 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20160108185137.GL238@brightrain.aerifal.cx> (raw) In-Reply-To: <568FF369.9080006@landley.net> On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 11:35:37AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote: > On 01/08/2016 12:56 AM, Simon Horman wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 11:40:54PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote: > >> From: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> > >> > >> Recently the bulk of traffic on the linux-sh list has been unrelated > >> to arch/sh but instead focused on Renesas hardware for their ARM-based > >> SoCs. As part of resuming maintenance of arch/sh, remove the linux-sh > >> list from the MAINTAINERS file sections for these other components so > >> that new arch/sh development is not drowned out by unrelated > >> cross-postings. > > > > The use of the linux-sh mailing list has evolved somewhat over time, > > from SH related to ARM related. Its name (obviously) has not evolved. > > According to http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html#linux-sh > > This is the development discussion and bug reporting mailing list > for the Linux port to the SuperH architecture. > > By "evolved" you mean "acquired a bunch of off-topic traffic because the > architecture's original owner abandoned it and moved on to other things > that already _have_ lists, but treated this list as their own personal > scratch pad". > > Those people let the architecture this list was created for become > unmaintained for a year and a half. DURING that year and a half they > posted unrelated content to the list because they think it belongs to > them personally rather than to Linux. > > Now that the architecture is becoming maintained again (on the hardware > side as well, because the patents have expired and other people are > taking an interest), we would like to reclaim this list to develop the > Linux arch/sh directory. > > This is a kernel list, not a Renesas list. > > > Dropping linux-sh@vger.kernel.org from portions of the MAINTAINERS file as > > you suggest would essentially leave the Renesas ARM work without a mailing > > list or patchwork instance. > > Here's a half-dozen arm lists already: > > http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/mailinglists/lists.php > > And that's not even a complete list of them all: > > http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html#linux-tegra > > > Both of which are actively used for that work. > > Off-topic traffic exists, therefore it should exist? Its volume is its > justification? Why do we have spam filters then? > > > Off-hand I can think of three solutions to this problem: > > > > 1. Live with the noise > > 2. Establish a new list (and possibly patchwork instance) for the SH work. > > So... squatter's rights? > > Renesas calling its new arm stuff "shmobile" is as relevant as Intel > designating itanic "ia64" as the successor to "ia32". The superh > architecture's only been officially unmaintained for a year and change > (presumably because the patents were expiring so they saw no more profit > in it for themselves). > > Meanwhile there was active superh-compatible work off-list during that > time (the j-core stuff) that's just now coming to fruition, building off > 20 years of history and a decade and change of previous Linux development. I'm not here to place blame or argue over who's "fault" it is that this happened, but it is inappropriate for a kernel arch list to be used as a development list for hardware that's no longer related to the arch and just happens to be produced/used by the same company. Another decent analogy might be if the linuxppc list had been deluged with driver traffic for Apple-specific x86 hardware after Apple dropped PPC and switched to x86. As far as I know, no such thing happened, but I don't think it would have gone over well. > [...] > We aren't proposing to rename the arch/sh directory to "jcore", so > "linux-sh@vger.kernel.org" remains the logical name for this list. The > new stuff is intentionally backwards compatible with the old stuff, and > we are happy to maintain compatibility with the old stuff, and have > current plans to move it to device tree. (We just need a lot more legacy > test hardware...) Indeed. SH is a nice arch with a very long history on Linux, and I'm happy to be carrying forward its legacy. I believe doing this within the framework that's already there (and thereby preserving and improving support for the legacy hardware), rather than starting over as if it were a new arch, is the right way to go, having the list overrun with mostly-unrelated traffic is an unfortunate situation to be in, and one that I'd like to see corrected. Rich
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> To: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net> Cc: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Yoshinori Sato <ysato@users.sourceforge.jp>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, "D. Jeff Dionne" <jeff@uClinux.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] MAINTAINERS: remove linux-sh list from non-arch/sh sections Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:51:37 -0500 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20160108185137.GL238@brightrain.aerifal.cx> (raw) In-Reply-To: <568FF369.9080006@landley.net> On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 11:35:37AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote: > On 01/08/2016 12:56 AM, Simon Horman wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 11:40:54PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote: > >> From: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> > >> > >> Recently the bulk of traffic on the linux-sh list has been unrelated > >> to arch/sh but instead focused on Renesas hardware for their ARM-based > >> SoCs. As part of resuming maintenance of arch/sh, remove the linux-sh > >> list from the MAINTAINERS file sections for these other components so > >> that new arch/sh development is not drowned out by unrelated > >> cross-postings. > > > > The use of the linux-sh mailing list has evolved somewhat over time, > > from SH related to ARM related. Its name (obviously) has not evolved. > > According to http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html#linux-sh > > This is the development discussion and bug reporting mailing list > for the Linux port to the SuperH architecture. > > By "evolved" you mean "acquired a bunch of off-topic traffic because the > architecture's original owner abandoned it and moved on to other things > that already _have_ lists, but treated this list as their own personal > scratch pad". > > Those people let the architecture this list was created for become > unmaintained for a year and a half. DURING that year and a half they > posted unrelated content to the list because they think it belongs to > them personally rather than to Linux. > > Now that the architecture is becoming maintained again (on the hardware > side as well, because the patents have expired and other people are > taking an interest), we would like to reclaim this list to develop the > Linux arch/sh directory. > > This is a kernel list, not a Renesas list. > > > Dropping linux-sh@vger.kernel.org from portions of the MAINTAINERS file as > > you suggest would essentially leave the Renesas ARM work without a mailing > > list or patchwork instance. > > Here's a half-dozen arm lists already: > > http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/mailinglists/lists.php > > And that's not even a complete list of them all: > > http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html#linux-tegra > > > Both of which are actively used for that work. > > Off-topic traffic exists, therefore it should exist? Its volume is its > justification? Why do we have spam filters then? > > > Off-hand I can think of three solutions to this problem: > > > > 1. Live with the noise > > 2. Establish a new list (and possibly patchwork instance) for the SH work. > > So... squatter's rights? > > Renesas calling its new arm stuff "shmobile" is as relevant as Intel > designating itanic "ia64" as the successor to "ia32". The superh > architecture's only been officially unmaintained for a year and change > (presumably because the patents were expiring so they saw no more profit > in it for themselves). > > Meanwhile there was active superh-compatible work off-list during that > time (the j-core stuff) that's just now coming to fruition, building off > 20 years of history and a decade and change of previous Linux development. I'm not here to place blame or argue over who's "fault" it is that this happened, but it is inappropriate for a kernel arch list to be used as a development list for hardware that's no longer related to the arch and just happens to be produced/used by the same company. Another decent analogy might be if the linuxppc list had been deluged with driver traffic for Apple-specific x86 hardware after Apple dropped PPC and switched to x86. As far as I know, no such thing happened, but I don't think it would have gone over well. > [...] > We aren't proposing to rename the arch/sh directory to "jcore", so > "linux-sh@vger.kernel.org" remains the logical name for this list. The > new stuff is intentionally backwards compatible with the old stuff, and > we are happy to maintain compatibility with the old stuff, and have > current plans to move it to device tree. (We just need a lot more legacy > test hardware...) Indeed. SH is a nice arch with a very long history on Linux, and I'm happy to be carrying forward its legacy. I believe doing this within the framework that's already there (and thereby preserving and improving support for the legacy hardware), rather than starting over as if it were a new arch, is the right way to go, having the list overrun with mostly-unrelated traffic is an unfortunate situation to be in, and one that I'd like to see corrected. Rich
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-08 18:51 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2016-01-08 4:39 [PATCH 0/2] Resume maintenance & development of arch/sh Rich Felker 2016-01-08 4:39 ` Rich Felker 2016-01-08 4:39 ` [PATCH 1/2] MAINTAINERS: return arch/sh to maintained state, with new maintainers Rich Felker 2016-01-08 4:39 ` Rich Felker 2016-01-11 17:53 ` Peter Zijlstra 2016-01-11 17:53 ` Peter Zijlstra 2016-01-13 1:40 ` Simon Horman 2016-01-13 1:40 ` Simon Horman 2016-01-15 0:52 ` Rich Felker 2016-01-15 0:52 ` Rich Felker 2016-01-15 9:31 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2016-01-15 9:31 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2016-01-17 2:32 ` Rich Felker 2016-01-17 2:32 ` Rich Felker 2016-01-17 8:48 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2016-01-17 8:48 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2016-01-08 4:40 ` [PATCH 2/2] MAINTAINERS: remove linux-sh list from non-arch/sh sections Rich Felker 2016-01-08 4:40 ` Rich Felker 2016-01-08 6:56 ` Simon Horman 2016-01-08 6:56 ` Simon Horman 2016-01-08 9:01 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2016-01-08 9:01 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2016-01-08 18:21 ` Rich Felker 2016-01-08 18:21 ` Rich Felker 2016-01-08 20:35 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2016-01-08 20:35 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2016-01-08 20:52 ` Rich Felker 2016-01-08 20:52 ` Rich Felker 2016-01-10 19:41 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2016-01-10 19:41 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2016-01-08 17:35 ` Rob Landley 2016-01-08 17:35 ` Rob Landley 2016-01-08 18:28 ` Laurent Pinchart 2016-01-08 18:28 ` Laurent Pinchart 2016-01-08 19:40 ` Rich Felker 2016-01-08 19:40 ` Rich Felker 2016-01-08 23:15 ` Laurent Pinchart 2016-01-08 23:15 ` Laurent Pinchart 2016-01-08 22:50 ` Rob Landley 2016-01-08 22:50 ` Rob Landley 2016-01-10 20:05 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2016-01-10 20:05 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2016-01-11 2:02 ` Rob Landley 2016-01-11 2:02 ` Rob Landley 2016-01-11 2:22 ` uClinux.org 2016-01-11 2:22 ` uClinux.org 2016-01-08 18:51 ` Rich Felker [this message] 2016-01-08 18:51 ` Rich Felker 2016-01-08 18:03 ` Sergei Shtylyov 2016-01-08 18:03 ` Sergei Shtylyov
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20160108185137.GL238@brightrain.aerifal.cx \ --to=dalias@libc.org \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \ --cc=horms@verge.net.au \ --cc=jeff@uClinux.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=peterz@infradead.org \ --cc=rob@landley.net \ --cc=ysato@users.sourceforge.jp \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.