Re: What went wrong with LSM, was: Re: [BK PATCH] LSM changes for 2.5.59

[Pete Zaitcev]

>>>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