[lkml]   [1999]   [Sep]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Shortening the Development Cycle... [maybe OffTopic, flame-bait?]

> This sounds reasonable for most features, except that some of
> the
> newer features would not get exercised. However, since
> newbies and
> commercial users usually use the "stable" series, this would
> be a safe approach.

I use the stable kernel too, and I am not a newbie, but that's
beside the point.

> it or not we are in competition with Microsoft and hence a
> target for them -- including FUD, millions of $ of it.

well we are in competition with other OSes too, but that aside
> Maybe goals like:
> 1. all features in by 2.2.20

um 2.3.20 or 2.2.20 ?

> 2. bug fixes until about 2.2.25 or 30 then declare a "beta
> kernel"
> and ask for extensive testing

again 2.3.25, or 2.2.25?

> Also, how about a kernel-kit for beta testers, including:
> - file system check software (like someone on the list asked
> for)

it would be better to modify e2fsck to be able to run fsck on a
mounted filesytem. makeing it more like umssync under a umsdos

> - memory test software

make -j bzImage

will test your memory, trust me I found this out and was able to
fix my problem by slowing down the reads in the bios. believe it
or not gcc is one of the better memeory testors.

> - network test software

netstat is not enough?

> [yes I know, many of these exist, but why not put them in a
> package?]

some distros have them and more...

> 2.2 has been out for what, nearly 9 months and some of us
> (myself
> included) are having stability problems with it....

I have to agree.


Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:53    [W:0.046 / U:0.712 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site