[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Are -final releases realy FINAL? (Was Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device)
On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 09:13:14AM +0600, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 11:02:36PM -0500, Robert Love wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2001-11-05 at 22:43, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > >
> > > Did anyone have this problem with pre8???
> >
> > Nope, it was added post-pre8 to final. The deactivate_page function was
> > removed completely.
> Look, Linus. Things should _not_ happen this way.
> Why do we add non-trivial changes when going from last -preX of a test kernel
> series to -final?
> Please make the last stable -preX the -final _without_ any changes. This is
> the third time this caused problem in recent times (2.4.11-dontuse, parport
> compile problems and now loop.o), and why don't we learn from previous
> mistakes?
> Isn't it stupid that some tarballs in the /pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/ do not even
> compile, while those in /pub/linux/kernel/testing/ does?

Here here.

You'd almost expect this from XP-beta to XP-final, but not Linux kernel...

Sorry, couldn't resist.

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 13:12    [W:0.082 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site