Hi Ingo,Clearly you have no idea what's going on, or how development is done. These are mutually exclusive different ideas on what constitutes an optimal scheduler, and not in any way improvements on the same thing, but total replacements for the algorithm of the scheduler.
I just thought I would mention this, because it is certainly on my mind. I can't help wondering if other folks are also concerned about
this. The thing is, why don't you just send your patches to Con who
got this whole ball rolling and did a bunch of great work, proving
beyond any reasonable doubt that he is capable of maintaining this
subsystem, whatever algorithm is finally adopted? Are you worried that Con might steal your thunder? That somehow the scheduler is
yours alone? That you might be perceived as less of a genius if
somebody else gets credit for their good work? NIH?
My perception is that you barged in to take over just when Con got things moving after the scheduler sat and rotted for several years.
If that is in any way accurate, then shame on you.