[lkml]   [1996]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.0.9, 2.0.10 and CMD640 EIDE... (Warning: Soapbox alert)
> 1)  I was given to believe that even numbered kernel series were
> PRODUCTION releases.

They are

> 2) I was also led to believe that production releases were for BUG FIXES,
> not bug introductions.

One implies the other, thats why we try not to change 2.0.x much

> 5) I know that the CMD640 is a busted chip. If I could perform an
> exorcism on these machines and get rid of them, I would. But do we
> HAVE to introduce NON WORKING patches into production level kernels to
> try and excise those annoyances?

How about for all the folks whose CMD640's now finally work in 2.0.10 ;)

> tub-full, I find the total lack of responsiveness to it, and problems like
> it, _especially_ gauling given the almost casual way this new code was
> placed and what has happened since.

I'm available at standard commercial rates for all Linux problems as are several
other people. Otherwise you'll probably find Linus for one is rather busy at
the moment as are a fair number of other people working thesis, articles,
books, papers etc.

I've not seen the stuck process report, but if you can send it on to me
please do - Im chasing something that looks like a pty or network bug
at the moment.

> be a nice happy clam later), but I'm about at my wits end. I'd hate to
> turn my back on Linux (our whole campus is running it, both on

What are you seeing in the way of stuck processes ?


 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.347 / U:0.404 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site