Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Release\s+1\.2\s+for\s+Kernel\s+2\.4\.20\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Release\s+1\.2\s+for\s+Kernel\s+2\.4\.20\?\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. Release 1.2 for Kernel 2.4.20? (score: 1): Author: Thomas Seifert <thomas.seifert@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 23:05:57 +0100; Hi folks, thanks for that great filesystem. I use it in production on many system and never had any problems with it :-). For the current release, is there a chance to get official 1.2-patches for th; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00148.html (7,228 bytes)
2. Re: Release 1.2 for Kernel 2.4.20? (score: 1): Author: Ondrej Sury <sury.ondrej@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:01:08 +0100; Fixing rejected patches after patching 2.4.19 with xfs 1.2 and then with linux 2.4.20 patch is trivial (at least for ia32 arch), but it may or may not work. I just did it, but I am not courageous eno; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00166.html (8,410 bytes)
3. Re: Release 1.2 for Kernel 2.4.20? (score: 1): Author: Frank Chung <chungf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:24:09 +0800; Being the _official_ patch, SGI developers naturally have certain requirements on its reliability. They have been working on version 1.2 since before 2.4.20 was out, so they can only guarantee reliab; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00192.html (8,823 bytes)
4. Re: Release 1.2 for Kernel 2.4.20? (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 22:14:49 -0600 (CST); This is a snapshot that is taken when things "seem" stable, and it's massaged into many sub-patches for system integrators. But it's still not rigorously tested. This one is cron-generated, runs the; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00193.html (8,571 bytes)
5. Release 1.2 for Kernel 2.4.20? (score: 1): Author: Thomas Seifert <thomas.seifert@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 23:05:57 +0100; Hi folks, thanks for that great filesystem. I use it in production on many system and never had any problems with it :-). For the current release, is there a chance to get official 1.2-patches for th; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00632.html (7,228 bytes)
6. Re: Release 1.2 for Kernel 2.4.20? (score: 1): Author: Ondrej Sury <sury.ondrej@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:01:08 +0100; Fixing rejected patches after patching 2.4.19 with xfs 1.2 and then with linux 2.4.20 patch is trivial (at least for ia32 arch), but it may or may not work. I just did it, but I am not courageous eno; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00650.html (8,410 bytes)
7. Re: Release 1.2 for Kernel 2.4.20? (score: 1): Author: Frank Chung <chungf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:24:09 +0800; Being the _official_ patch, SGI developers naturally have certain requirements on its reliability. They have been working on version 1.2 since before 2.4.20 was out, so they can only guarantee reliab; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00676.html (8,823 bytes)
8. Re: Release 1.2 for Kernel 2.4.20? (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 22:14:49 -0600 (CST); This is a snapshot that is taken when things "seem" stable, and it's massaged into many sub-patches for system integrators. But it's still not rigorously tested. This one is cron-generated, runs the; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg00677.html (8,571 bytes)
9. Release 1.2 for Kernel 2.4.20? (score: 1): Author: Thomas Seifert <thomas.seifert@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 23:05:57 +0100; Hi folks, thanks for that great filesystem. I use it in production on many system and never had any problems with it :-). For the current release, is there a chance to get official 1.2-patches for th; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg01116.html (7,228 bytes)
10. Re: Release 1.2 for Kernel 2.4.20? (score: 1): Author: Ondrej Sury <sury.ondrej@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:01:08 +0100; Fixing rejected patches after patching 2.4.19 with xfs 1.2 and then with linux 2.4.20 patch is trivial (at least for ia32 arch), but it may or may not work. I just did it, but I am not courageous eno; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg01134.html (8,517 bytes)
11. Re: Release 1.2 for Kernel 2.4.20? (score: 1): Author: Frank Chung <chungf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:24:09 +0800; Being the _official_ patch, SGI developers naturally have certain requirements on its reliability. They have been working on version 1.2 since before 2.4.20 was out, so they can only guarantee reliab; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg01160.html (8,944 bytes)
12. Re: Release 1.2 for Kernel 2.4.20? (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 22:14:49 -0600 (CST); This is a snapshot that is taken when things "seem" stable, and it's massaged into many sub-patches for system integrators. But it's still not rigorously tested. This one is cron-generated, runs the; /archives/xfs/2003-02/msg01161.html (8,653 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 12
Page: [1]