| To: | Robin Humble <rjh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: How risky is 2.5.x? |
| From: | David Lloyd <lloy0076@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 12 Nov 2002 00:23:16 +1030 |
| Cc: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20021111003017.C23548@marmot.cita.utoronto.ca> |
| References: | <87wunlsvri.fsf@Login.CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE> <20021110193742.70a3be2b.lloy0076@adam.com.au> <20021111003017.C23548@marmot.cita.utoronto.ca> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Robin, > There are 'issues' with all kernels. If there wasn't, then 2.4 > development would have stopped at 2.4.0 :-) Yes, but 2.4.X kernels aren't meant to be in a state of quick and sudden flux. Whilst I agree new features are added to 2.4.X series kernels there are by far more known issues with a 2.5.X series kernel. Indeed, I could equally argue that if 2.5.X is so supposedly stable, then why bother running a development version at all and just merge everything into 2.4.X... DSL -- Angel of Music, why deny me? Turning from true beauty! Angel of music, do not shun me, Turn to your strange Angel! |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Acl-Devel] Re: User EA on symlinks, 2.4.19-xfs, Ben Martin |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Acl-Devel] e2fsck -f ==> system hangs, Andreas Gruenbacher |
| Previous by Thread: | bug in rpm (was Re: How risky is 2.5.x?), Robin Humble |
| Next by Thread: | [Bug 192] New: corruption 33869960 dinode, bugzilla-daemon |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |