On Wednesday 08 February 2006 16:59, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Hi, > > On Wednesday 08 February 2006 00:11, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > 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! > > I strongly disagree with this opinion. I don't think there's any problem with > Pavel, at least I haven't had any problems in communicating with him. You seem to be the only person around who gets on well with him. Please, more people step up and tell me I'm wrong. I am only going off the mailing list afterall, and not daily personal interaction of some other kind. > Moreover, I don't think the role of maintainer must be to actually write the > code. From my point of view Pavel is in the right place, because I need > someone to tell me if I'm going to do something stupid who knows the kernel > better than I do. By definition, if they don't maintain code, their not a maintainer. If they only tell someone that they're going to do something stupid, they're a code reviewer. > Furthermore, in many cases this is not Pavel who opposes your patches. Other people have given feedback in the past that has been along the lines of suggesting improvements / cleanups / whatever, but (feel free to correct me) no one apart from him has written it off wholesale, told me I'm wasting my time or the like. I want to get on with Pavel, I really do. But it's very hard when, despite my best efforts, trying to make allowances for possible misunderstandings and the like, I never seem to hear a helpful word from him. It's always "No.". "I don't want that.", and never (so far as I recall) "Here's how you could do that better..", "The idea is ok but the implementation is broken because..." or the like. Perhaps it is (as was said yesterday) just a cultural/language thing, but I'm not sure. > As we speak there is a discussion on linux-pm regarding a patch that you > have submitted and I'm sure you are following it. Please note that Pavel > hasn't spoken yet, but the patch has already been opposed by at least > two people. Is _this_ a Pavel's fault? No, it isn't. I haven't seen any replies apart from yours so far. Perhaps there's something wrong with my mail delivery :(. I'll check the archives. Nigel > Greetings, > Rafael > > > -- See our web page for Howtos, FAQs, the Wiki and mailing list info. http://www.suspend2.net IRC: #suspend2 on Freenode
Attachment:
pgpCLMcVBzAna.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- 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: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>
- [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.
- Prev by Date: Re: [RFC] EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL_FUTURE()
- Next by Date: Re: libATA PATA status report, new patch
- 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):