Sorry, sorry.
The lists are open.
Please tell us if mailman still bothers.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 03:46:53PM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> > "Jens" == Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jens> First one gets a mail saying that the mail sent is queued for
> Jens> moderator appr
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 03:35:43PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, AJ Lewis wrote:
>
> > It is unfortunate that this could not have been resolved in a more mature
> > manner. Saying "I don't like the way somebody is doing something. I won't
> > bother to talk to them about it,
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 08:48:19PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19 2001, AJ Lewis wrote:
> > It is unfortunate that this could not have been resolved in a more mature
> > manner. Saying "I don't like the way somebody is doing something. I won't
> > bother to talk to them about it, I'll
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 08:25:15PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > We will announce when they are available ASAP and would appreciate if
> > > people like Alan Cox, Andrea Arcangeli and Andreas Dilger
> > > could check them *before* we start submitting them to
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 07:04:21PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > We will announce when they are available ASAP and would appreciate if
> > people like Alan Cox, Andrea Arcangeli and Andreas Dilger
> > could check them *before* we start submitting them to Linus.
>
> I'll be glad to help look over the
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> If you are PERL speaker (or can at least comprehend perl's
> m(atch) expressions), here is URL to info about it, plus
> the actual live running filter-set:
>
> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
> Go to the end of the page, and yo
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 08:36:37AM -0400, Doug McNaught wrote:
[ not much at all spams at linux-kernel ... ]
>
> That's partly because davem and Matti are rabid anti-spam weasels and
> very good at it. ;) There are all kinds of filters (including
> content-based ones) on l-k, otherwise we'd be
On Fri, Apr 20 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > We will announce when they are available ASAP and would appreciate if
> > people like Alan Cox, Andrea Arcangeli and Andreas Dilger
> > could check them *before* we start submitting them to Linus.
>
> I'll be glad to help look over them.
Same here, the im
> We will announce when they are available ASAP and would appreciate if
> people like Alan Cox, Andrea Arcangeli and Andreas Dilger
> could check them *before* we start submitting them to Linus.
I'll be glad to help look over them.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux
Previously Heinz J. Mauelshagen wrote:
> Linux LVM is a Sistina GPL project and there's no danger at all
> that we want to change its GPL nature!
I think the general sentiment is that LVM is a Linux project,
currently being managed by Sistina.
Also, since you have merged patches from other you
Having just a couple of days of vacation I got informed today that
a number of people got pissed off and decided to open a new Linux LVM mailing
list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Facts people complained about included:
1. people got dropped from the list
2. messages bouncing
3. lack of (small) LVM
Miles Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gosh, this seems like a bit of a red herring, IMHO. Do you think the
> LKML gets a "lot" of spam? Or, how about the linux-usb-devel or
> linux-hotplug-devel lists? None of these lists are moderated and the
> occasional spam gets sent to them, but I have
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 04:09:32PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> AJ Lewis wrote:
> > Ok, the issue here is that we're trying to get a release out and so anything
> > that majorly changes the code is getting shunted aside for the moment. It
> > would be stupid to just add everything that comes in on
> Hmm...i guess there is a communication issue here. It sounds like the
> message that our ML server was sending was misleading. We were not
> rejecting mail because of content. The ML server was rejecting it
because
> the address was not subscribed. Our idea was that we don't want spam.
Luca Berra wrote:
> we have some serous problems here.
[...]
> a better lvm (still buggy according to many kernel hackers, but better still),
> which does not get into the kernel for communication reasons. (Alan can you help?
> there is a lot of stuff that goes in -ac before going to mainstream)
Fuck! I hate these things early in the morning.
what gets me extremely pissed in the whole business is that i don't
believe that splitting the mailing list is the solution to LVM problems.
Escpecially since we have a number of lusers of lwm at the time being.
I believe sistina is mostly at faul
Dear Sistina:
I know very little about LVM, but from watching earlier projects
in the same situation you're in now, the path you need to follow
seems clear:
Stop using CVS internally for development.
It makes checking in changes without submitting them to
Linus too easy.
To get sync'd
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> went in, but not other stuff. Also, it doesn't appear that any of the
> LVM changes are making it into the stock kernel, which is basically a
> recepie for disaster.
agreed... after the problematic inclusion of 0.9 into the kernel i
asked on sistina
AJ writes:
> Ok, the issue here is that we're trying to get a release out and so anything
> that majorly changes the code is getting shunted aside for the moment.
Actually, the whole idea of "trying to get a release out" is part of the
problem. If patches were included into CVS and sent sent to
Alan Cox wrote:
>>As far as getting patches into the stock kernel, we've been sending patches
>>to Linus for over a month now, and none of them have made it in. Maybe
>>someone has some pointers on how we get our code past his filters.
>>
>
> Has it occured to you that some of this might be bec
Hi AJ,
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 02:40:15PM -0500, AJ Lewis wrote:
> The list is now open. I've talked to our admin and he's opening it up.
> Send me e-mail if it doesn't work, 'cause something else is broken.
to me it looks like your reactions are too late.
I suggest you Sistina people accept t
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 04:09:32PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> AJ Lewis wrote:
> > Ok, the issue here is that we're trying to get a release out and so anything
> > that majorly changes the code is getting shunted aside for the moment. It
> > would be stupid to just add everything that comes in on
AJ Lewis wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 08:02:50PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>
>>Well their approach to patches that fix bugs is to reject emails. They've done
>>that to stuff I've reported any many others. So there is a problem. And its
>>kind of hard to discuss a problem when you are being mode
AJ Lewis wrote:
> Ok, the issue here is that we're trying to get a release out and so anything
> that majorly changes the code is getting shunted aside for the moment. It
> would be stupid to just add everything that comes in on the ML without
> review. Linus does the exact same thing. I've sai
> As far as getting patches into the stock kernel, we've been sending patches
> to Linus for over a month now, and none of them have made it in. Maybe
> someone has some pointers on how we get our code past his filters.
Has it occured to you that some of this might be because the code does stuff
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 01:45:20PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> I don't think that the subscription is necessarily the only issue. I'm
> subscribed to all of the LVM mailing lists, and still a lot of what I
> submit (legitimate bug fixes, and not just features/code cleanup) does
> not get added
On Thu, Apr 19 2001, AJ Lewis wrote:
> As far as getting patches into the stock kernel, we've been sending patches
> to Linus for over a month now, and none of them have made it in. Maybe
> someone has some pointers on how we get our code past his filters.
The diff between 2.4.4-pre LVM and your
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> I don't think that the subscription is necessarily the only
> issue. I'm subscribed to all of the LVM mailing lists, and
> still a lot of what I submit (legitimate bug fixes, and not just
> features/code cleanup) does not get added to CVS. Yes, the
>
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 01:45:20PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> I don't think that the subscription is necessarily the only issue. I'm
> subscribed to all of the LVM mailing lists, and still a lot of what I
> submit (legitimate bug fixes, and not just features/code cleanup) does
> not get added
> Not to be negative, but isn't Alan the pot calling the kettle black? You
> use ORBS to block email as well, with no hope of reprieve. AFAIK, the
I dont stop other people discussing the kernel. Its very very different.
> linux-lvm list has a moderator which _should_ forward legitimate emails
> All it would have taken was a request and a good reason for doing so, but
> I guess this is one way to do it. Just don't complain about spam. :)
I think you'll find several folks who run linux-kernel and other lists like
the linux.nl mailhub more than happy to help there
Alan
-
To unsubscri
> "Jens" == Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jens> First one gets a mail saying that the mail sent is queued for
Jens> moderator approval, since I'm not on the list. Then later a
Jens> second mail arrives, saying the mail has been rejected by the
Jens> moderator.
Yep. Same here. Late
AJ Lewis writes:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 08:02:50PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Well their approach to patches that fix bugs is to reject emails. They've
> > done that to stuff I've reported any many others. So there is a problem.
> > And it's kind of hard to discuss a problem when you are being
The list is now open. I've talked to our admin and he's opening it up.
Send me e-mail if it doesn't work, 'cause something else is broken.
All it would have taken was a request and a good reason for doing so, but
I guess this is one way to do it. Just don't complain about spam. :)
Regards,
AJ
> "AJ" == AJ Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AJ> On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:17:29PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> This was tried, trust me. We didn't create this list because
>> someone forgot to respond to a single posting. As we wrote in the
>> announcement there has been too many inciden
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:35:51PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> > ">" == AJ Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Hmm...i guess there is a communication issue here. It sounds like
> >> the message that our ML server was sending was misleading. We were
> >> not rejecting mail because of cont
> ">" == AJ Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Hmm...i guess there is a communication issue here. It sounds like
>> the message that our ML server was sending was misleading. We were
>> not rejecting mail because of content. The ML server was rejecting
>> it because the address was not s
On Thu, Apr 19 2001, AJ Lewis wrote:
> Did anyone bother to e-mail the list admins? Perhaps it was too difficult
> to figure out who to mail about this, but I know for a fact that Rik van
> Riel and Jens Axboe could post to [EMAIL PROTECTED] It would have been
> nice if they had mentioned someth
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:17:29PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> This was tried, trust me. We didn't create this list because someone
> forgot to respond to a single posting. As we wrote in the announcement
> there has been too many incidents: At least two people got kicked off
> the old lvm list f
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 08:02:50PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Well their approach to patches that fix bugs is to reject emails. They've done
> that to stuff I've reported any many others. So there is a problem. And its
> kind of hard to discuss a problem when you are being moderated out of existance
> "AJ" == AJ Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AJ> It is unfortunate that this could not have been resolved in a more
AJ> mature manner.
Personally, I find it exceedingly immature that my postings get
moderated to the bitbucket every time I report a bug in your code.
This is simply not th
> ">" == AJ Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It is unfortunate that this could not have been resolved in a more
>> mature manner. Saying "I don't like the way somebody is doing
>> something. I won't bother to talk to them about it, I'll just
>> flame them and try to undermine their work
> It is unfortunate that this could not have been resolved in a more mature
> manner. Saying "I don't like the way somebody is doing something. I won't
> bother to talk to them about it, I'll just flame them and try to undermine
> their work." is not acceptable. It would have been nice if you'd
On Thu, Apr 19 2001, AJ Lewis wrote:
> It is unfortunate that this could not have been resolved in a more mature
> manner. Saying "I don't like the way somebody is doing something. I won't
> bother to talk to them about it, I'll just flame them and try to undermine
> their work." is not acceptab
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, AJ Lewis wrote:
> It is unfortunate that this could not have been resolved in a more mature
> manner. Saying "I don't like the way somebody is doing something. I won't
> bother to talk to them about it, I'll just flame them and try to undermine
> their work." is not accepta
AJ Lewis wrote:
> It is unfortunate that this could not have been resolved in a more mature
> manner. Saying "I don't like the way somebody is doing something. I won't
> bother to talk to them about it, I'll just flame them and try to undermine
> their work." is not acceptable. It would have be
It is unfortunate that this could not have been resolved in a more mature
manner. Saying "I don't like the way somebody is doing something. I won't
bother to talk to them about it, I'll just flame them and try to undermine
their work." is not acceptable. It would have been nice if you'd actuall
47 matches
Mail list logo
