Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

On Po 20-02-06 21:08:07, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Po 20-02-06 14:51:55, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 08:12:42PM +0100, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> > > > I'd love to have Nigel helping me and kernel, but he's not
> > > > interested. He wants suspend2 merged, he does not want better suspend
> > > > in kernel.
> > > 
> > > If you made comments like that about me on a public mailing list I
> > > would feel it would be very difficult trying to cooperate with you.
> > > 
> > > Please reconsider your public replies regarding this already delicate
> > > issue a bit more before you criticize people who has spent a great
> > > deal of time trying to get a working solution.
> > 
> > I'm going to have to second Henrik here.  Pavel, there are times when
> > you are starting to sound almost as strident as our cdrecord
> > "friend".
> 
> Heh, I hope I'm not that bad.
> 
> > 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.

...BTW... here's how you could help. Part of the problem is that Nigel
does not trust me. When I tell him that something is not acceptable
for kernel, he tends to ignore it (probably thinking it is me hating
his code or something like that).

If you could take a look at the patches before they go to me, and
either tell him what is wrong with them, or tell me that you consider
them okay... I guess that would help a lot.

								Pavel
-- 
Web maintainer for suspend.sf.net (www.sf.net/projects/suspend) wanted...