Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:30:56 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.) |
| |
> 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?
I do not trust you to be an exception, sorry. Your behaviour up to now also suggests you will not be. Pavel -- Thanks, Sharp! - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |