> On Tuesday 29 May 2001 15:16, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > a reasonably stable release until 2.2.12. I do not understand why
> > > code with such serious reproducible problems is being introduced into
> > > the even numbered kernels. What happened to the plan to use only the
> > Who said it was introduced ?? It was more 'lurking' than introduced. And
> > unfortunately nobody really pinned it down in 2.4test.
> I fail to see the distinction. First of all, why was it ever released
> as 2.4-test? That question should probably be directed at Linus. If
> it is not fully tested, then it should be released it as an odd
> number. If it already existed in the odd numbered development kernel
> and was known, then it should have never been released as a production
> kernel until it was resolved. Otherwise, it completely defeats the
> purpose of having the even/odd numbering system.
> I do not expect bugs to never slip through to production kernels, but
> known bugs that are not trivial should not, and serious bugs like
> these VM problems especially should not.
And you can help prevent them from slipping through by signing up as a
shake and bake tester. Indeed, you can make your expectations reality
absolutely free of charge, <microfont> and or compensation </microfont>
what a bargain!
X ___________________ ;-)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/