Re: [TuxOnIce-devel] [RFC] TuxOnIce

[Nigel Cunningham <nigel@tuxonice.net>]

Hi Len.

On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 15:10 -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> > Please stick at this.
> 
> I agree with Ray, and could not have said it better.
> 
> I will, however, reference prior art...
> 
> Greg KH said the exact same thing in 2005
> when he met with Nigel and Pavel in Ottawa.
> 
> >From Patrick Mochel's minutes, available here:
> http://lwn.net/Articles/144193/
> 
> "Suspend2 and Software Suspend
> 
> There was agreement among the attendees that Nigel Cunningham's 
> suspend-to-disk patches ("Suspend2") are stable and worthwhile to many 
> users. It was suggested that he begin the process of merging his patches 
> with Pavel Machek's in-kernel software suspend implementation. A lengthy 
> discussion followed about strategies for doing so and the philosophy of 
> gradual kernel development.
> 
> To briefly recap: Suspend2 is very robust and feature rich. Not only does 
> it include a reliable process freezer, it has the ability to compress and 
> encrypt the suspended image and includes a graphical status bar. Although 
> it apparently does receive positive reviews from users, most kernel 
> developers do not care about such eye candy. It was suggested and agreed 
> that Nigel will split the patches (all 69 of them so far) into functional 
> groups, and push them separately. We agreed that the process freezer 
> patches would come first, which should also benefit the existing suspend 
> implementation as well. Next will most likely be the new algorithmic core 
> and eventually the plugin architecture and graphical features. It was 
> heavily stressed that Nigel and Pavel must work together and that the more 
> effort that is put in to making the patches smaller and simpler, the 
> easier it will be to merge this work. "
> 
> While "suspend2" is now called "tux-on-ice", the same message
> about how to merge upstream applies in 2009
> just as much as it did in 2005.
> 
> Rafael's reference to ch10 in HPA's articulate 2008 OLS paper is apt
> http://ols.fedoraproject.org/OLS/Reprints-2008/anvin-reprint.pdf
> The involved parties must have common motivation to make forward progress.
> 
> The process should be to cherry-pick the out-of-tree implementation
> to gradually improve the in-tree-implementation.  If we had started
> that 4 years ago, we'd be done by now.  If we don't start it now,
> we'll be having this same conversation again in 2013.

Thanks for the encouragement.

I'm seeking to do this with Rafael, and he's being really good to deal
with.

Regards,

Nigel