From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030221AbWBTNa7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2006 08:30:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030216AbWBTNa7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2006 08:30:59 -0500 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.31.123]:738 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030217AbWBTNa6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2006 08:30:58 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:30:56 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Nigel Cunningham Cc: Lee Revell , Matthias Hensler , Sebastian Kgler , kernel list , rjw@sisk.pl Subject: Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.) Message-ID: <20060220133049.GE23277@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> References: <20060201113710.6320.68289.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20060220093911.GB19293@kobayashi-maru.wspse.de> <1140430002.3429.4.camel@mindpipe> <200602202038.21559.nigel@suspend2.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200602202038.21559.nigel@suspend2.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > 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!