On Po 20-02-06 20:44:48, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> 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.
Yes, there is:
1) you don't really watch mainline development.
2) you are not trying to improve mainline suspend, all you want is to
merge suspend2.
3) you ask me to trust you to clean it up after merge.
4) you still have code that was declared unacceptable 12 months
ago. ("press C to continue..." from kernel!)
5) you refuse to use existing mainline features, even through bugs
that forced you to reimplement them were fixed _long_ time ago.
6) you spread FUD about swsusp. (I.e. latest attempt to redefine
"working").
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]
