Hi!
[I should probably left this reply to Rafael, but...]
> > > 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.
Well, on the other hand you are the only person that really has
problems with me.
> > 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.
You seem to be using different definition of maintainer than rest of
the world.
> > 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.
If I rephrase my comments as:
"The idea is okay, but the implementation is broken, because it does
too much stuff in the kernel."
and
"Here's how you could do that better; take a look at latest -mm and
use facilities it provides to push most of suspend2 code into
userland."
...will that help?
> > 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.
Oh... did not seen that mail thread. Please cc: me on suspend-related
stuff.
Pavel
--
Web maintainer for suspend.sf.net (www.sf.net/projects/suspend) wanted...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
