On Wed 28. Jun - 09:37:50, Holger Macht wrote:
> (readded lost CC's)
>
> On Thu 22. Jun - 12:55:03, Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thursday 22 June 2006 11:01, Holger Macht wrote:
> > [... long emails that all make a lot of sense]
> > > So what are the next steps...
> > >
> > > I think we should give others some time to also comment on all that. And
> > > or course, it would be important to know what the kpowersave maintainer
> > > (Danny? ;-) thinks of all this. Then we should meet at kde-hardware-devel
> > > to discuss a solid - powerlibs integration. I already started with the
> > > powersave daemon redesign in regard to CPUFreq and from my point of view,
> > > I will be available to do more the from now on.
> >
> > First, I'll briefly introduce myself. I'm sebas, working on the guidance
> > system administration tools in Kubuntu.
> >
> > As you know, we're pondering what would be the best solution for the
> > upcoming
> > Edgy Eft release of Kubuntu. We have a pretty tight release schedule, with
> > a
> > feature freeze in 11 weeks from now. We are planning to implement a small
> > powermanagement solution for this next release.
> >
> > I am very pleased with your plans though, even if it might not look like
> > that
> > in the first place. The small solution we're writing will be replaced with
> > your proposal, but at the moment we're a bit hesitant because it seems to
> > be
> > the beginning of a bigger overhaul. We'll keep track of your work though,
> > and
> > we'll try to help out and share work whereever possible. The reason why
> > we're
> > going for an own solution is that we think we can have something that does
> > the work pretty soon. However, we're already thinking of getting the code
> > integrated in HAL and other pieces where applicable. We're definitely not
> > out
> > to duplicate efforts, we're looking for a temporary solution that does it
> > well enough for the moment.
>
> I really don't like seeing you creating another temporary solution. My
> plans might sound big and complicated, but they can be seperated into
> verious different pieces. So taking the kpowersave approach, because it
> should be independent, it is completely seperated from the rest of the
> plans. From kpowersave's point of view, it's just to patch out the
> powersave dependencies and addin a few other things. So why not putting
> your efforts into kpowersave _now_, so that it provides the basic
> functionality, which will still be definitely more than your new
> application may provide. I think it's really doable within the next weeks.
Sebastian, so you stick to creating a new application? I think we should
start the kpowersave redesign now, creating a new mailinglist for the new
kpowersave and start working together.
Danny, what's your opinion about this?
Regards,
Holger
_______________________________________________
powersave-devel mailing list
powersave-devel@forge.novell.com
http://forge.novell.com/mailman/listinfo/powersave-devel
