[Seth re new redesigned codebase] > From: Seth Jennings [mailto:sjenning@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 4:33 PM > > So I can't support this patchset, citing the performance > degradation and the fact that this submission is > unreviewable due to it being one huge monolithic patchset on > top of an existing codebase. [Dan re old demo codebase] > From: Dan Magenheimer > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 11:48 AM > Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging > > Sorry, but FWIW my vote is still a NACK. IMHO zcache needs major > work before it should be promoted, and I think we should be spending > the time fixing the known flaws rather than arguing about promoting > "demo" code. :-# "Well, pahdner," drawls the Colorado cowboy (Dan) to the Texas cowboy (Seth), "I reckon we gots us a good old fashioned standoff." "What say we settle this like men, say six-shooters at twenty paces?" :-) Seriously, maybe we should consider a fork? Zcache and zcache2? (I am REALLY away from email for a few days starting NOW.) Dan _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
