On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Monty wrote: > >> Am I insane? Am I the only one who believes that 'stable' means > >> 'don't randomly fuck with it'? > >I believe "optional" means "can be disabled completely". > ...and when a change this large introduces new bugs into the old and > new implementations? This is desirable in a 'stable' kernel? Dont see how it would introduce new bugs into the old implementation since all the relevant code would be #define'd out by the compiler. That is, if its configured off, the code simply doesnt exist, and you get the old implementation, pristine. -Dan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems on recent Linux versions Joerg Schilling
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems on recent Linux versio... Richard Gooch
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems on recent Linux versions Joerg Schilling
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems on recent Linux versio... Richard Gooch
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems on recent Linux ve... Monty
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems on recent Linu... Richard Gooch
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems on recent ... Monty
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems on re... Dan Hollis
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems o... Monty
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems o... Dan Hollis
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems o... Monty
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems o... Dan Hollis
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems o... Richard Gooch
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems o... Theodore Y. Ts'o
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems o... Richard Gooch
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems o... Theodore Y. Ts'o
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems o... Richard Gooch
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems o... Richard Gooch
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems o... Monty
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems o... Richard Gooch
