Re: What is needed for a stable 2.4 based system?

[Keith Owens <kaos@xxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 20:16:05 +0100, 
Jan-Frode Myklebust <janfrode@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>I've had the impression that the cvs-tree was purely a bugfix only
>tree, and that it should be as safe as the kernel.org tree. Is that not true?

The CVS trees are reflections (delayed a few hours) of the SGI internal
development tree.  Their stability depends on what SGI are doing to
XFS.  ATM it is mainly bug fixes, but large chunks could go in, for
example, 2.4 XFS was upgraded to kdb v3.0 last week.

SGI run nightly QA tests on the development trees, so "it works for
us".  Like any other leading edge code, run your own tests.