lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-02-20 14:33    [W:0.023 / U:61.596 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site