Spamming linux-kernel and linux-scsi by out-of-tree patches (LIO)

Spamming linux-kernel and linux-scsi by out-of-tree patches (LIO)

[Vladislav Bolkhovitin]

Nicholas,

Could you stop spamming linux-kernel and linux-scsi mailing lists by 
patches for your out-of-tree LIO project, please?

Those mailing lists are intended for patches for in-kernel components 
only, not for all out-of-tree projects, finding their ways into the 
mainline. I don't see any reason why your project should be an 
exception. Think, what a mess the kernel mailing lists would get, if all 
out-of-tree projects started sending their patches to them?

My personal practical concerns about your patches that they trigger my 
e-mail filters, so I have to spend on them much more time than I would want.

So, please, respect other people and stop sending your LIO patches.

Thanks,
Vlad

Re: Spamming linux-kernel and linux-scsi by out-of-tree patches (LIO)

[James Bottomley]

On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 16:17 +0300, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
> Nicholas,
> 
> Could you stop spamming linux-kernel and linux-scsi mailing lists by 
> patches for your out-of-tree LIO project, please?
> 
> Those mailing lists are intended for patches for in-kernel components 
> only, not for all out-of-tree projects, finding their ways into the 
> mainline. I don't see any reason why your project should be an 
> exception. Think, what a mess the kernel mailing lists would get, if all 
> out-of-tree projects started sending their patches to them?

Actually, out of tree projects trying to make their way upstream are
welcome to use the various linux- mailing lists to solicit feedback and
review.  This method was, for instance, how FCoE made it in.

> My personal practical concerns about your patches that they trigger my 
> e-mail filters, so I have to spend on them much more time than I would want.

I've found that spamassassin does a good job of marking patches as non
spam.  Also, if you're using zmailer, vger seems to have some type of
patch recognition system built in which might be worth co-opting.

James

Re: Spamming linux-kernel and linux-scsi by out-of-tree patches (LIO)

[Vladislav Bolkhovitin]

James Bottomley, on 01/26/2009 06:37 PM wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 16:17 +0300, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
>> Nicholas,
>>
>> Could you stop spamming linux-kernel and linux-scsi mailing lists by 
>> patches for your out-of-tree LIO project, please?
>>
>> Those mailing lists are intended for patches for in-kernel components 
>> only, not for all out-of-tree projects, finding their ways into the 
>> mainline. I don't see any reason why your project should be an 
>> exception. Think, what a mess the kernel mailing lists would get, if all 
>> out-of-tree projects started sending their patches to them?
> 
> Actually, out of tree projects trying to make their way upstream are
> welcome to use the various linux- mailing lists to solicit feedback and
> review.  This method was, for instance, how FCoE made it in.

Hmm, I might be wrong, but what I've seen that FCoE only at the 
beginning used linux-scsi for its intermediate patches, then such 
patches quickly went into FCoE internal development mailing list only. 
Then only resulting patches intended for wide review and mainline 
inclusion were sent to linux-scsi. This is how I thought it's usually 
considered should be done and how all the projects I've seen so far did.

I wouldn't object if Nicholas does the same and send in linux-scsi and 
linux-kernel a complete patchset, which we will review and discuss. But 
he sends *intermediate* patches and this looks for me like a violation 
of fundamental rules/intention of Linux kernel mailing lists, hence I 
complain.

So, should I understand your words that you agree if I also start 
sending intermediate patches for SCST to linux-scsi/linux-kernel?

>> My personal practical concerns about your patches that they trigger my 
>> e-mail filters, so I have to spend on them much more time than I would want.
> 
> I've found that spamassassin does a good job of marking patches as non
> spam.  Also, if you're using zmailer, vger seems to have some type of
> patch recognition system built in which might be worth co-opting.

Thanks for the suggestions, but, unfortunately, none of those filters 
can distinguish e-mails/patches sent by Nicholas Bellinger in some 
important SCSI target related discussion from his unsolicited 
intermediate patches, which I should ignore.

Vlad

Re: Spamming linux-kernel and linux-scsi by out-of-tree patches (LIO)

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:08:24 +0300
Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@vlnb.net> wrote:

> I wouldn't object if Nicholas des the same and send in linux-scsi
> and linux-kernel a complete patchset, which we will review and
> discuss. But he sends *intermediate* patches and this looks for me
> like a violation of fundamental rules/intention of Linux kernel
> mailing lists, hence I complain.
> 
> So, should I understand your words that you agree if I also start 
> sending intermediate patches for SCST to linux-scsi/linux-kernel?
> 


<looking in as an outsider>

I am thoroughly surprised by this email exchange.
>From where I sit, there is almost no such thing as posting patches too
early. Really. Transparency and early review/feedaback is by far
more important than ignoring a few more patches in an area you
don't careabout.


Your second paragraph makes me wonder if your email is more political
than technical in nature. But either way, you should feel encouraged
to release early, release often.



-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org

Re: Spamming linux-kernel and linux-scsi by out-of-tree patches (LIO)

[James Bottomley]

On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 19:08 +0300, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
> James Bottomley, on 01/26/2009 06:37 PM wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 16:17 +0300, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
> >> Nicholas,
> >>
> >> Could you stop spamming linux-kernel and linux-scsi mailing lists by 
> >> patches for your out-of-tree LIO project, please?
> >>
> >> Those mailing lists are intended for patches for in-kernel components 
> >> only, not for all out-of-tree projects, finding their ways into the 
> >> mainline. I don't see any reason why your project should be an 
> >> exception. Think, what a mess the kernel mailing lists would get, if all 
> >> out-of-tree projects started sending their patches to them?
> > 
> > Actually, out of tree projects trying to make their way upstream are
> > welcome to use the various linux- mailing lists to solicit feedback and
> > review.  This method was, for instance, how FCoE made it in.
> 
> Hmm, I might be wrong, but what I've seen that FCoE only at the 
> beginning used linux-scsi for its intermediate patches, then such 
> patches quickly went into FCoE internal development mailing list only. 
> Then only resulting patches intended for wide review and mainline 
> inclusion were sent to linux-scsi. This is how I thought it's usually 
> considered should be done and how all the projects I've seen so far did.

The only piece I think they didn't bother with was the target, mainly
because the only wanted the initator upstream.  But the principle is
still the same: projects trying to make their way upstream are welcome
to send patches.

> I wouldn't object if Nicholas does the same and send in linux-scsi and 
> linux-kernel a complete patchset, which we will review and discuss. But 
> he sends *intermediate* patches and this looks for me like a violation 
> of fundamental rules/intention of Linux kernel mailing lists, hence I 
> complain.

FCoE did the same thing.  Incremental patches are useful in showing
motion towards coding standards and kernel norms ... at least they gave
me the warm feeling that FCoE was heading in the right direction.

As long as the full code is in a repository somewhere anyone whose
curiosity is piqued by the patches can go and look there as well.

> So, should I understand your words that you agree if I also start 
> sending intermediate patches for SCST to linux-scsi/linux-kernel?

Certainly.

James

Re: Spamming linux-kernel and linux-scsi by out-of-tree patches (LIO)

[Vladislav Bolkhovitin]

Arjan van de Ven, on 01/26/2009 07:19 PM wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:08:24 +0300
> Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@vlnb.net> wrote:
> 
>> I wouldn't object if Nicholas des the same and send in linux-scsi
>> and linux-kernel a complete patchset, which we will review and
>> discuss. But he sends *intermediate* patches and this looks for me
>> like a violation of fundamental rules/intention of Linux kernel
>> mailing lists, hence I complain.
>>
>> So, should I understand your words that you agree if I also start 
>> sending intermediate patches for SCST to linux-scsi/linux-kernel?
>>
> 
> 
> <looking in as an outsider>
> 
> I am thoroughly surprised by this email exchange.
> From where I sit, there is almost no such thing as posting patches too
> early. Really. Transparency and early review/feedaback is by far
> more important than ignoring a few more patches in an area you
> don't careabout.

Sure. All projects (including LIO) have own mailing list(s) for such 
review/feedback, but at the moment LIO and Linux kernel are completely 
separated projects.

Anyway, I could just misunderstand the intention and policy of Linux 
kernel mailing lists. I apologize, if so.

> Your second paragraph makes me wonder if your email is more political
> than technical in nature. But either way, you should feel encouraged
> to release early, release often.

There's not much politic in it. Simply what Nicholas Bellinger does 
violated my understanding of what allowed in Linux kernel mailing lists, 
so I wondered, if what allowed for Nicholas Bellinger allowed for me as 
well.

Vlad

Re: Spamming linux-kernel and linux-scsi by out-of-tree patches (LIO)

[Nicholas A. Bellinger]

On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 08:19 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:08:24 +0300
> Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@vlnb.net> wrote:
> 
> > I wouldn't object if Nicholas des the same and send in linux-scsi
> > and linux-kernel a complete patchset, which we will review and
> > discuss. But he sends *intermediate* patches and this looks for me
> > like a violation of fundamental rules/intention of Linux kernel
> > mailing lists, hence I complain.
> > 
> > So, should I understand your words that you agree if I also start 
> > sending intermediate patches for SCST to linux-scsi/linux-kernel?
> > 
> 
> 
> <looking in as an outsider>
> 
> I am thoroughly surprised by this email exchange.
> From where I sit, there is almost no such thing as posting patches too
> early. Really. Transparency and early review/feedaback is by far
> more important than ignoring a few more patches in an area you
> don't careabout.
> 

For those wanting to know more about "Release Early, Release Often":

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ar01s04.html

<SNIP>

Linus's open development policy was the very opposite of
cathedral-building. Linux's Internet archives were burgeoning, multiple
distributions were being floated. And all of this was driven by an
unheard-of frequency of core system releases.

Linus was treating his users as co-developers in the most effective
possible way:

        7. Release early. Release often. And listen to your customers.
        

Linus's innovation wasn't so much in doing quick-turnaround releases
incorporating lots of user feedback (something like this had been
Unix-world tradition for a long time), but in scaling it up to a level
of intensity that matched the complexity of what he was developing. In
those early times (around 1991) it wasn't unknown for him to release a
new kernel more than once a day! Because he cultivated his base of
co-developers and leveraged the Internet for collaboration harder than
anyone else, this worked.

<SNIP>

--nab