On Fri, 8 April 2005 22:16:07 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> More importantly, it is still listed as "the list" for network
> drivers...
>
> NETWORK DEVICE DRIVERS
> P: Andrew Morton
> M: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> P: Jeff Garzik
> M: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> L:
On Fri, 8 April 2005 22:16:07 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
More importantly, it is still listed as the list for network
drivers...
NETWORK DEVICE DRIVERS
P: Andrew Morton
M: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
P: Jeff Garzik
M: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
L: linux-net@vger.kernel.org
S:
Hi!
> >>As mentioned in the email, you want netdev, not linux-net...
> >
> >
> >Just out of curiosity: why are there two mailing lists? Especially if
> >one of them is the Wrong One.
>
>
>
> linux-net is mostly dead. I get the impression it is occasionally used
> by users.
>
> netdev (as,
Hi!
As mentioned in the email, you want netdev, not linux-net...
Just out of curiosity: why are there two mailing lists? Especially if
one of them is the Wrong One.
shrug
linux-net is mostly dead. I get the impression it is occasionally used
by users.
netdev (as, perhaps, the
On Tue, 29 March 2005 17:44:33 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> It doesn't matter that much to me. If you want to undertake
> the removal of linux-net as your personal mission, I won't stop you :)
At least it weakens your position when you state "Random newbie John
Doe failed to pick the
On Tue, 29 March 2005 17:44:33 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
shrug It doesn't matter that much to me. If you want to undertake
the removal of linux-net as your personal mission, I won't stop you :)
At least it weakens your position when you state Random newbie John
Doe failed to pick the
Jörn Engel wrote:
On Tue, 29 March 2005 15:06:04 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Jörn Engel wrote:
Just out of curiosity: why are there two mailing lists? Especially if
one of them is the Wrong One.
linux-net is mostly dead. I get the impression it is occasionally used
by users.
netdev (as,
On Tue, 29 March 2005 15:06:04 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Jörn Engel wrote:
> >
> >Just out of curiosity: why are there two mailing lists? Especially if
> >one of them is the Wrong One.
>
>
>
> linux-net is mostly dead. I get the impression it is occasionally used
> by users.
>
> netdev
Jörn Engel wrote:
On Tue, 29 March 2005 02:10:02 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
As mentioned in the email, you want netdev, not linux-net...
Just out of curiosity: why are there two mailing lists? Especially if
one of them is the Wrong One.
linux-net is mostly dead. I get the impression it is
Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was
too large and the vger server munched it.
As mentioned in the email, you want netdev, not linux-net...
we are currently thinking about changing the sign-off chain for the s390
network
Andrew Morton wrote:
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was
too large and the vger server munched it.
This also brings up a larger question... why was a completely
On Tue, 29 March 2005 02:10:02 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> As mentioned in the email, you want netdev, not linux-net...
Just out of curiosity: why are there two mailing lists? Especially if
one of them is the Wrong One.
Jörn
--
The competent programmer is fully aware of the strictly
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was
> > too large and the vger server munched it.
>
> This also brings up a larger question... why was a completely unreviewed
> net driver merged?
Because nobody noticed that it
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> > Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was
> >> > too large and the vger server munched it.
> >>
> >> This also brings up a larger question... why
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 11:08:30PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:
> > > ChangeSet 1.2231.1.122, 2005/03/28 19:50:29-08:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > [PATCH] s390:
Andrew Morton wrote:
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was
> too large and the vger server munched it.
This also brings up a larger question... why was a completely unreviewed
net driver merged?
Because nobody noticed
Andrew Morton wrote:
Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was
too large and the vger server munched it.
This also brings up a larger question... why was a completely unreviewed
net driver merged?
Because nobody noticed that it
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 11:08:30PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:
ChangeSet 1.2231.1.122, 2005/03/28 19:50:29-08:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
Add support for claw
Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was
too large and the vger server munched it.
This also brings up a larger question... why was a completely
Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was
too large and the vger server munched it.
This also brings up a larger question... why was a completely unreviewed
net driver merged?
Because nobody noticed that it didn't
On Tue, 29 March 2005 02:10:02 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
As mentioned in the email, you want netdev, not linux-net...
Just out of curiosity: why are there two mailing lists? Especially if
one of them is the Wrong One.
Jörn
--
The competent programmer is fully aware of the strictly limited
Andrew Morton wrote:
Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was
too large and the vger server munched it.
This also brings up a larger question... why was a completely
Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Was cc'ed to linux-net last Thursday, but it looks like the messages was
too large and the vger server munched it.
As mentioned in the email, you want netdev, not linux-net...
we are currently thinking about changing the sign-off chain for the s390
network
Jörn Engel wrote:
On Tue, 29 March 2005 02:10:02 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
As mentioned in the email, you want netdev, not linux-net...
Just out of curiosity: why are there two mailing lists? Especially if
one of them is the Wrong One.
shrug
linux-net is mostly dead. I get the impression it is
On Tue, 29 March 2005 15:06:04 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Jörn Engel wrote:
Just out of curiosity: why are there two mailing lists? Especially if
one of them is the Wrong One.
shrug
linux-net is mostly dead. I get the impression it is occasionally used
by users.
netdev (as,
Jörn Engel wrote:
On Tue, 29 March 2005 15:06:04 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Jörn Engel wrote:
Just out of curiosity: why are there two mailing lists? Especially if
one of them is the Wrong One.
shrug
linux-net is mostly dead. I get the impression it is occasionally used
by users.
netdev (as,
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:
> > ChangeSet 1.2231.1.122, 2005/03/28 19:50:29-08:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > [PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
> >
> >Add support for claw network devic
Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:
ChangeSet 1.2231.1.122, 2005/03/28 19:50:29-08:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PATCH] s390: claw network device driver
Add support for claw network devices.
Signed-off-by: Martin Schwidefsky
28 matches
Mail list logo
