Suggestion: Give JFFS its own mail list.

Josh Boyer jdub at
Wed Apr 20 11:28:11 EDT 2005

On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 09:39 -0500, Steve Wahl wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 06:23:11PM +0400, Artem B. Bityuckiy wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 09:40 -0400, Ian McDonnell wrote:
> > > Is it time to give JFFS/JFFS2 a mail list of its own?
> > > 
> > > I am a user intested in MTD and below but not jffs, and
> > > it seams like there's a lot of jffs adn jffs/mtd discussion on 
> > > the MTD list.
> > > 
> > > Decoupling the two mail lists may indirectly help improve the 
> > > MTD/mtd-clent (JFFS2,YAFFS,Char-IO/Block-IO) API by focusing
> > > more on the abstract interface and less on application specifics.
> > > 
> > <stress>IMO<\stress>, the list is very low-volume to split it.
> > Personally I have no problems seeing discussions of things to which I am
> > not involved.
> But actual MTD issues seem to get ignored, perhaps because the list is
> so swampped with JFFS issues.
> At least I think that's the reason I was completely ignored when I
> posted (twice) about a bug with AMD 29LV800 parts (and thus gave
> up)...

Hm, I don't think that's the reason.  I read your posts, and they made
sense to me.  But I don't have any similar hardware, and can't confirm,
debug, or otherwise make a useful contribution.  That may be more of a
reason for nobody responding.

Another reason is that people are generally busy and just don't have
time to read the list.  We aren't ignoring you on purpose, so please
don't give up.

Patches always get more attention too :).


More information about the linux-mtd mailing list