Hi. On Tuesday 21 February 2006 06:08, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Maybe you feel you are in a power position because your code happened > > to enter the kernel first, so you few you can have veto power over all > > other contenders. It sometimes works that way, but only up to a > > Unfortunately, I do not need to veto suspend2. It is so complex that > it vetoes itself. Last time akpm stopped it, IIRC. I'm going to let most of the last 8 hours' emails float by without reply, but think I should comment here. I don't believe I've ever seen an email from Andrew stopping a merge, and I shouldn't have, because I've never asked him to merge it. Being the perfectionist that I am, I've sought to get it as stable, reliable and comment-clean as I reasonably could before merging. Regards, Nigel -- See our web page for Howtos, FAQs, the Wiki and mailing list info. http://www.suspend2.net IRC: #suspend2 on Freenode
Attachment:
pgpHdBgSTeq4O.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: "Theodore Ts'o" <[email protected]>
- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
- [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.
- Prev by Date: Re: 2.6.16-rc4-mm1
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] mm: Implement swap prefetching
- 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):
 |