On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 16:06 -0800, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: I'm not taking a position on the merit of the wakelocks per se norwhether Rafael is right or wrong here, I haven't looked at the problemclosely enough. I just want to react to this: > The basic concept was developed long before android was a public> project. This isn't going to bring you any good will. We don't care what was donebefore it was a public project. That has strictly no relevance to how itshould be submitted upstream. How long the code has been simmering internally to company X or Y oreven in a public tree doesn't matter. Some times, yes, we do takesomething as a whole, when it makes no sense to do otherwise (a driver,a filesystem, ...). But something like what you propose, it seems, could easily be brokendown into a basic concept, on which features are added one after theother, and in this case, it's the right way to go, simply because it'seasier to argue for the basic concept alone if you don't have to handlecomments froms people who don't agree with aspect A B or C of the otherfeatures involved. And if the basic concept doesn't get accepted in the first place, thenthe whole point is moot... Cheers,Ben. _______________________________________________linux-pm mailing listlinux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
