Hi. On Monday 20 February 2006 20:15, Lee Revell wrote: > On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 11:10 +0100, Matthias Hensler wrote: > > > Why can't people understand that arguing "it works" without any > > > consideration of possible performance tradeoffs is not a good enough > > > argument for merging? > > > > It sure isn't the argument, you are right. My main concern here is to > > throw away a working implementation and starting over from the scratch, > > instead of solving these problems. > > Take it up with the author for not working more closely with the kernel > developers while Suspend2 was being developed, AFAICT a LOT of this > could have been avoided with better communication. Perhaps, but maybe there's more going on here than that. Nigel -- See our web page for Howtos, FAQs, the Wiki and mailing list info. http://www.suspend2.net IRC: #suspend2 on Freenode
Attachment:
pgpg6OhtlekZc.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: Matthias Hensler <[email protected]>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: Lee Revell <[email protected]>
- [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.
- Prev by Date: Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- 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):
 |