- Original Message -
From: "Alan Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 6:41 PM
Subject: Change of policy for future 2.2 driver submissions
>
> Linux 2.4 is now out, it is also what people should be concentrating on
first
> when issuing producti
> I personaly do not trust the 2.4.x kernel entirely yet, and would prefer to
...
> afraid that this may partialy criple 2.2 driver development.
egads! how can there be "development" on a *stable* kernel line?
maybe this is the time to reconsider terminology/policy:
does "stable" mean "bugfixes
Nicholas,
While I can see what you are asking, here are some comments in Alan's
favor:
He did not say people can not release 2.2 patches without 2.4 patches.
He only said they will not be integrated into the kernel distribution
without 2.4 patches.
If people continue to develop for 2.2 and have
> I was in your position, I feel it may be a mistake.
> I personaly do not trust the 2.4.x kernel entirely yet, and would
> prefer to
> wait for 2.4.1 or 2.4.2 before upgrading from 2.2.18 to ensure last-minute
> wrinkles have been completely ironed out, and I know there are people who
> share my
You might find it interesting to read the section entitled "Monkeywrenching the
Virtual Machine" towards the end of "Why We Should All Test the New Linux
Kernel". It's in my second comment after the main article:
http://advogato.org/article/224.html
I understand Linus' desire to have more wides
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Andre Tomt wrote:
> I would wait for at least 2.4.10 on production systems (servers in
> particular). Not to start a flame or anything (yeah, right), but 2.2.x was
> not usable on such systems before it reached 2.2.16 IMHO.
>
> So, I guess, the "crippling" of driver submissio
Michael D. Crawford wrote:
> You might think this is great because of all the extra testing the new users
> will do but I assert that it isn't. The environment for Linux is quite
> different these days than when 2.2 or 2.0 were released.
>
> A lot of the people who will be using it are not t
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Nicholas Knight wrote:
> While I understand the reasoning behind this, and might do the
> same thing if I was in your position, I feel it may be a
> mistake. I personaly do not trust the 2.4.x kernel entirely yet,
> and would prefer to wait for 2.4.1 or 2.4.2 before upgrading
Mark Hahn wrote:
> > I personaly do not trust the 2.4.x kernel entirely yet, and would prefer to
> ...
> > afraid that this may partialy criple 2.2 driver development.
>
> egads! how can there be "development" on a *stable* kernel line?
>
> maybe this is the time to reconsider terminology/polic
we have to test them anyway.
Wayne
Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 01/05/2001 06:52:00 AM
To: Mark Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: (bcc: Wayne Brown/Corporate/Altec)
Subject: Re: Change of policy for future 2.2 driver submissions
Mark Hah
> In other words, there's no longer any such thing as a "stable" branch. The
> whole point of having separate production and development branches was to have
> one in which each succeeding patch could be counted upon to be more reliable
By your personal definition of stable 2.0.3x is the current
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> In other words, there's no longer any such thing as a "stable" branch. The
>> whole point of having separate production and development branches was to have
>> one in which each succeeding patch could be counted upon to be more reliable
> By your pers
> > By your personal definition of stable 2.0.3x is the current stable kernel.
>
> Btw: Any chance to see an official 2.0.39 soon?
> 2.0.39final is out for about half a year now...
David sent me one thing to look at before he's happy. So right now Im the guilty
party holding it up. Hopefulyl a
tec
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Phillips),
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Hahn),
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Change of policy for future 2.2 driver submissions
> In other words, there's no longer any such thing as a "stable" branch. The
> whole point of having s
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Michael D. Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I understand Linus' desire to have more widespread testing done on the kernel,
>and certainly he can accomplish that by labeling some random build as the new
>stable version. But I think a better choice would have b
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mark Hahn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: Change of policy for future
n/Corporate/Altec@Altec
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Change of policy for future 2.2 driver submissions
Wayne,
The versions of patch-kernel included in 2.3/2.4 support extra version
information, so patches from Linus and others (i.e. Alan Cox) can be applied
if proper information is place
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Either I'm blind, or especially dense today, or both (quite possible :-) but I
> don't see any reference in patch-kernel to the extra version information.
> EXTRAVERSION is defined in the kernel Makefile, and I tried using the script
> found in th
been hoping that now that 2.4.0 is out, maybe future patches will go
back to the x.y.z format so I could just let patch-kernel do everything.
Wayne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Holloway) on 01/06/2001 04:15:53 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:(bcc: Wayne Brown/Corporate/Altec)
Subject: Re: Change
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 10:52:48PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> Actually, I have another reason for using patch-kernel, besides being
> inexperienced or lazy: being weird. :-) For some reason, I have an
> aversion to downloading complete kernels, and just grab the patches.
> That's u
wrong about this one. :-)
Wayne
David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 01/08/2001 05:07:08 AM
To: Wayne Brown/Corporate/Altec@Altec
cc: Nick Holloway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Change of policy for future 2.2 driver submissions
You know, there are
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 05, Linus Torvalds wrote:
[...]
> But that's very different from having somebody like RedHat, SuSE or
> Debian make such a kernel part of their standard package. No, I don't
> expect that they'll switch over completely immediately: that would show
> a lack of good judgement. The
> some official 2.2 kernel. In order to make it possible to switch between
> kernel releases, every vendor now really is forced to integrate the new
> RAID0.90 code to their 2.2 kernel. IMHO this code should be integrated to
> the next official 2.2 kernel so people can use whatever they want.
The
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 02:54:44PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > some official 2.2 kernel. In order to make it possible to switch between
> > kernel releases, every vendor now really is forced to integrate the new
> > RAID0.90 code to their 2.2 kernel. IMHO this code should be integrated to
> > the n
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Jakob Østergaard wrote:
>
> Besides, most people using Software RAID have been using 0.90 for
> at least two years - so I doubt this would have been much of a problem
> if the 0.90 patches weren't available for 2.2, which they are.
This is probably th eimportant part. Most
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Hubert Mantel wrote:
> Right, but now there is a problem: Software RAID. The RAID code of
> 2.4.0 is not backwards compatible to the one in 2.2.18; if somebody
> has used 2.4.0 on softraid and discovers some problem, he can not
> switch back to some official 2.2 kernel. [...]
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Hubert Mantel wrote:
> > Right, but now there is a problem: Software RAID. The RAID code of
> > 2.4.0 is not backwards compatible to the one in 2.2.18; if somebody
> > has used 2.4.0 on softraid and discovers some problem, he can not
> > switch back to some official 2.2 kerne
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > [ the only category impacted are people who are still using the
> > RAID1/RAID4,5 code in the stock 2.2 kernel - i do believe the number of
>
> That's the category Hubert was talking about indeed.
i unde
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 02:17:35AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i understand now - well, there is no reliable RAID1/RAID5 support in the
> stock 2.2 kernel indeed, you need the 0.90 patch.
I used raid1 without problems in stock 2.2 kernel. For raid5 I certainly
agree ;).
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe f
29 matches
Mail list logo
