Re: suspend2 merge (was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: CFS and suspend2: hang in atomic copy)

[Nigel Cunningham <nigel@nigel.suspend2.net>]

Hello.

On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 23:30 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > Please ask anyone who's worked with me if he's had any problem with that.
> > > If anyone say I'm unable to work with anybody else, I'd say you're right.  Till
> > > then, I feel offended.
> > 
> > I'll apologise (and virtually kiss your hairy feet) if you could actually 
> > show me a single implementation that people can agree on.
> > 
> > But until then, I claim that the suspend-to-disk people cannot work with 
> > each other.
> 
> It is not Rafael's fault. Actually it is quite hard to work with
> Nigel, because he implements every feature someone asks for, and wants
> to merge them all :-(. I don't expect to ever agree with Nigel on
> anything important, sorry.

I'm sorry that you feel that way, Pavel.

I can agree that I implement features that people ask for, but I think
saying "every feature someone asks for" is going a bit far (I won't ask
you to prove that). My desire is to provide Linux with hibernation
support that does more than just the bare minimum. Different people have
different usage scenarios, and this has led to me implementing more and
different features.

As to wanting to merge them all, this is true. No one wants to put time
into something only to have it left out. But I don't see why you think
this is a bad thing. Many kernel guys claim the thing follows an
evolutionary model. Well, here's software that has been developed out of
tree - evolved if you like - and which many people would consider more
mature ('evolved'?) than [u]swsusp. If evolutionary theory is to be
followed, let the fittest survive!

Nigel

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part