Re: Nigel's work and the future of Suspend2.

[Nigel Cunningham <nigel@suspend2.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1805 bytes --]

Hi.

On Wednesday 08 March 2006 05:50, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > Users of Suspend2 can rest assured that I will not allow the patches to
> > suffer bitrot. I will be continuing to use them myself, and will
> > therefore have the best of incentives to keep them up-to-date.
>
> I think you for all your work, and I hope that your new calling will be
> satisfying!

Thanks :)

> > Now for the downside: I won't, however, be making any sort of concerted
> > effort at getting them merged into the vanilla kernel after my move, and
> > am not inclined to make a big effort beforehand. Recent discussions on
> > LKML clearly showed that Pavel doesn't want to see them merged, and I
> > didn't see much in the way of other kernel developers expressing a desire
> > contrary to Pavel's wishes. I don't want to waste my time and effort, so
> > I don't see the point to doing anything but maintaining the patches as
> > they stand.
>
> I have never had any problems with Suspend1 in terms of SUSPEND,
> although I was hoping at some time that RESUME functionality would be
> added as well ;-) Suspend2 has worked for my laptops, and I'm delighted
> that you will be continuing your work.

I don't think of swsusp as suspend1 - in my mind, Suspend1 was the version I 
released before suspend2 :). That said, I obviously know what you mean. It 
should work - they're basically the same. The main difference that would make 
Suspend2 work for you would be that I've sometimes included the odd driver 
fix in the suspend2 patch to save people having to go searching, and have (my 
bad) been too slow at pushing them upstream.

Regards,

Nigel
-- 
See our web page for Howtos, FAQs, the Wiki and mailing list info.
http://www.suspend2.net                IRC: #suspend2 on Freenode

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]