| To: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Hi! I've noticed that kernel.org advertises 2.6.28 as "The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is". |
| From: | David Newall <davidn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:32:21 +1030 |
| Cc: | Igor Podlesny <for.poige+linux@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20081229092124.GA18987@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <43d009740812282139x7597aafbn4474455c1aa1e0e8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20081229092124.GA18987@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080227) |
Christoph Hellwig wrote: > instead of these rants bug reports would be more useful. Igor didn't rant, not even a little bit, and it reflects poorly on you that you engage in hyperbole rather than hear his story. In fact, or at least in my opinion as a computer programmer with 30 years experience, he's right: A newly stable kernel is not stable. He might even be right about regressions since 2.6.24. It's a sorry day when somebody making a simple, reasonable and accurate feedback is criticised for not providing bug reports. But don't let him (or me) stop you guys from toasting your fine success. You believe it's stable; what more could anyone want? |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: couple small xfstest patches, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] xfstests: test 194, test tricky mapping/conversion around holes, Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Hi! I've noticed that kernel.org advertises 2.6.28 as "The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is"., Igor Podlesny |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Hi! I've noticed that kernel.org advertises 2.6.28 as "The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is"., Sitsofe Wheeler |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |