[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Please tag tested releases of the 2.4.x kernel
On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 05:04:51PM -0500, Justin Wells wrote:
> It would be great if on there were a note indicating which
> releases of the linux kernel had been favourably received.
> If you could organize a bit you could even mark a release as "TESTED",
> or even "APPROVED". All it would mean is that after it had been out for
> a week or two nobody found any really serious problems.

Are you volunteering to keep up on which kernels had what erratas?

> "Really serious" would be something like it corrupts the filesystem, or
> crashes a lot, or fails to build, or introduces a remote root exploit.
> Releases like 2.4.14 (fails to build loopback) and 2.4.15 (corrupts)
> would not be tagged as "APPROVED".
> Also "APPROVED" or "TESTED" doesn't mean there are no issues or problems,
> just that they're the usual kind of issues and problems, rather than
> really serious issues.
> I expect there to be quite a bit of human judgement involved in applying
> the label. I'm not looking for a rigorous criteria--just the general
> feeling of the community a week or two after the release was posted.

The problem is that this is much like documentation. It (should|needs to)
be done, but usually it'll be started, and then abandoned.

Something like LWN (Linux Weekly News) might be a good place for this.
Since you probably wouldn't want to know daily if you're going to be a few
versions behind.

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:13    [W:1.166 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site