On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 11:41:52 -0700 Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
---snipped my original message---
> I think your'e missing the entire point of the unstable tree. Its not
> there solely for people to play with the assorted new features that get
> thrown in. And no where is there any promise of stability or usability.
>
Yes, I've missed something, but why even post a kernel source package that
doesn't even compile %70? It'd be better to keep it under wraps in CVS, at
least until the damn thing compiles. :')
> A Rolls Royce is akin to the 2.4.x tree, not the 2.5.x tree. There
> were *alot* of 2.3.x kernels that were completely and utterly broken,
> and were basically released simply because some folks needed to test how
> well some new code integrated into the tree.
>
The only way to test source code integration is to compile it. Clearly,
the stuff being posted isn't being compiled as a complete project. Yeah
the various portions may compile just fine, clean as a whistle... but as a
whole it... well... doesn't.
My humble perception is... the new kernel versions are being posted for a
reason other than what they are intended for. What it is? I dunno.
---
*************************************************************************
***** Registered Linux User Number 185956
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&group=linux
2:59pm up 45 days, 20:15, 2 users, load average: 0.01, 0.02, 0.00
_______________________________________________
Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
