Hello. On Wednesday 08 February 2006 09:02, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > Personally I agree with you on suspend2, I think this is something that > > > > needed to Just Work yesterday, and every day it doesn't work we are > > > > losing users... but who am I to talk, I'm not the one who will have to > > > > maintain it. > > > > > > It does just work in mainline now. If it does not please open bug > > > account at bugzilla.kernel.org. > > > > > > If mainline swsusp is too slow for you, install uswsusp. If it is > > > still too slow for you, mail me a patch adding LZW to userland code > > > (should be easy). > > > > <horrified rebuke> > > > > Pavel! > > > > Responses like this are precisely why you're not the most popular kernel > > maintainer. Telling people to use beta (alpha?) code or fix it > > I do not *want* to be the most popular maintainer. That is your place ;-). > > > themselves > > (and then have their patches rejected by you) is no way to maintain a part > > of the kernel. Stop being a liability instead of an asset! > > Ugh? > > Lee is a programmer. He wants faster swsusp, and improving uswsusp is > currently best way to get that. It may be alpha/beta quality, but > someone has to start testing, and Lee should be good for that (played > with realtime kernels etc...). Actually it is in good enough state > that I'd like non-programmers to test it, too. Ok. So Lee might be ok to test uswsusp. But this is your approach regardless of who is emailing you. You consistently tell people to fix problems themselves and send you a patch. That's not what a maintainer should do. They're supposed to maintain, not get other people to do the work. They're supposed to be helpful, not a source of anxiety. You might be the maintainer of swsusp in name, but you're not in practice. Please, lift your game! Nigel -- See our web page for Howtos, FAQs, the Wiki and mailing list info. http://www.suspend2.net IRC: #suspend2 on Freenode
Attachment:
pgpvAHSgFvOne.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- References:
- [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.
- From: Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
- [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.
- Prev by Date: Re: [rfc][patch] sched: remove smpnice
- Next by Date: Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- Previous by thread: Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- Next by thread: Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- Index(es):