Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Ted Ts'o
Date: Thursday, August 12, 2010 - 5:52 am

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 03:28:01PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:

So, Felipe,

Do you believe you speak for all of LKML?

Are you willing to tell ZDNet and the Slashdot fanboys that it's OK
for Suspend blockers to live in a separate tree, and it's not a case
of OMG!  Google is forking the kernel?

If you could speak out a passionately on those forums as you have
here, that would be great.

						- Ted
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, tak ..., Ted Ts'o, (Thu Aug 12, 5:52 am)
Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, tak ..., Felipe Contreras, (Thu Aug 12, 12:05 pm)
Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, tak ..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Thu Aug 12, 8:28 pm)
Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, tak ..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Fri Aug 13, 8:07 am)
Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, tak ..., Bernd Petrovitsch, (Mon Aug 16, 4:36 am)
Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, tak ..., Rafael J. Wysocki, (Tue Aug 17, 6:18 am)
Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, tak ..., Paul E. McKenney, (Tue Aug 17, 10:33 am)