Re: swsusp: revert to 2.6.0-test3 state

[brian@worldcontrol.com]

On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 08:25:38AM -0700, Patrick Mochel wrote:
> No, you have to understand that I don't want to call software_suspend() at 
> all. You've made the choice not to accept the swsusp changes, so we're 
> forking the code. We will have competing implementations of 
> suspend-to-disk in the kernel. 

And the fork happened in 2.6.0-test4?

Some how I thought the 6, being even, meant stable.

I am at a complete loss how these test3 to test4 major changes
that broke everything meet with the often repeated definitions
of how kernel development is to be accomplished.

Perhaps I missed something, development kernels include all
odd numbers and 6?

-- 
Brian Litzinger