Hi. On Monday 20 February 2006 20:06, Lee Revell wrote: > On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 10:39 +0100, Matthias Hensler wrote: > > These "big changes" is something I have a problem with, since it means > > to delay a working suspend/resume in Linux for another > > "short-term" (so > > what does it mean: 1 month? six? twelve?). It is painful to get these > > things to work reliable, I have followed this for nearly 1.5 years. > > And > > again: today there is a working implementation, so why not merge it > > and > > have something today, and then start working on the other things. > > It never works that way in practice - if you let broken/suboptimal code > into the kernel then it's a LOT less likely to get fixed later than if > you make fixing it a condition of inclusion because once it's in there's > much less motivation to fix it. I can be an exception, can't I? Regards, Nigel -- See our web page for Howtos, FAQs, the Wiki and mailing list info. http://www.suspend2.net IRC: #suspend2 on Freenode
Attachment:
pgpr79cqzrm8J.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?
- Next by thread: Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- Index(es):
 |