[lkml]   [2010]   [Jul]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: stable? quality assurance?

First question what is a "desaster"?

Second question, what makes you so important that you feel you can
makes demands and comments as you did.

If indeed these are production systems and you are an administrator of
said production systems. I suggest you need to do a little more home
work to expand your knowledge base.

I would follow Eric's advice. It's sound advice and better yet it was free.

Hope you have better luck in getting your systems running well.

On 7/11/10, Martin Steigerwald <> wrote:
> Hi!
> 2.6.34 was a desaster for me: bug #15969 - patch was availble before
> 2.6.34 already, bug #15788, also reported with 2.6.34-rc2 already, as well
> as most important two complete lockups - well maybe just and radeon
> KMS, I didn't start my second laptop to SSH into the locked up one - on my
> ThinkPad T42. I fixed the first one with the patch, but after the lockups I
> just downgraded to 2.6.33 again.
> I still actually *use* my machines for something else than hunting patches
> for kernel bugs and on it is written "Latest *Stable* Kernel"
> (accentuation from me). I know of the argument that one should use a
> distro kernel for machines that are for production use. But frankly, does
> that justify to deliver in advance known crap to the distributors? What
> impact do partly grave bugs reported on bugzilla have on the release
> decision?
> And how about people who have their reasons - mine is TuxOnIce - to
> compile their own kernels?
> Well fixed the two reported bugs and it seemed to have fixed the
> freezes as well. So far so good.
> Maybe it should read "prerelease of stable" for at least on the
> website. And I just again always wait for .2 or .3, as with I
> still have some problems like the hang on hibernation reported in
> hang on hibernation with kernel and TuxOnIce
> on this mailing list just a moment ago. But then 2.6.33 did hang with
> TuxOnIce which apparently (!) wasn't a TuxOnIce problem either, since
> 2.6.34 did not hang with it anymore which was a reason for me to try
> 2.6.34 earlier.
> I am quite a bit worried about the quality of the recent kernels. Some
> iterations earlier I just compiled them, partly even rc-ones which I do
> not expact to be table, and they just worked. But in the recent times .0,
> partly even .1 or .2 versions haven't been stable for me quite some times
> already and thus they better not be advertised as such on I
> think. I am willing to risk some testing and do bug reports, but these are
> still production machines, I do not have any spare test machines, and
> there needs to be some balance, i.e. the kernels should basically work.
> Thus I for sure will be more reluctant to upgrade in the future.
> Ciao,
> --
> Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald -
> GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7

Sent from my mobile device

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-07-11 15:59    [W:0.235 / U:6.908 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site