john wrote:
 > It looks like perhaps the kernel changes have slipped right through
 > the F11 schedule.  Is it seriously likely that the F11 kernel

for the record, this was a conscious decision.  everyone knew there
wouldn't be time to get XO-specific changes upstream, and back to
fedora, before F11.  as you say, it was the cost of going broke.

the challenge is now to get those changes upstream in time for F12.

 > maintainers would adopt a pile of OLPC patches that aren't in the
 > upstream kernel, between the Beta and the Final F11 releases?  Had
 > these changes been adopted (by Fedora or by the Linux kernel) early in
 > the release cycle, they could've been well tested to make sure they
 > don't introduce any problems into non-OLPC hardware.  But now, it
 > appears that F11 won't be able to suspend on OLPC, which makes it
 > almost useless for laptop use (as opposed to developer use when the
 > laptop is sitting on a desk with permanent AC power).  Such is the

i think the plan is to make an OLPC-patched kernel available for
the distribution creators.


 > price of firing all of your kernel developers.
 > Even the bug report that tracks the kernel power management changes
 > has fallen into disarray (the Fedora "Bug Zapper" zapped it in November
 > and nobody has bothered to fix it since):
 >      John
 > _______________________________________________
 > Fedora-olpc-list mailing list

 paul fox,
Devel mailing list

Reply via email to