[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Bug in sgi-xfs?

To: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Bug in sgi-xfs?
From: Krzysztof Rusocki <kszysiu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 14:34:14 +0200
Cc: Willi.Langenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <>; from knuffie@xxxxxxxxx on Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 01:54:17PM +0200
References: <15298.49018.477634.619452@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <15298.48625.831518.499561@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <15298.49018.477634.619452@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20011009131721.A9570@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 01:54:17PM +0200, Seth Mos wrote:

Hi Seth,

> That would mean a kernel needs to be heavily tested before it can be used 
> for an update disk.

So, you mean that testing 2.4.10 received is still insufficient ?

> Since the development is past 1.0.1 already and fitting 1.0.1 from 2.4.5 on 
> a newer kernel wouldn't be a really good idea either.

I really can't see the point why it shouldn't be good idea. What speaks
against doing so? any known problems?
Actually I tried to speak in the name of few people that either already reported
issues concerning 2.4.5 itself, or - undoubtfully - will report such problems
in future.
I really doubt if 2.4.5 is more ,,stable'' (according to new stability 
definition that came with 2.4 series ;P ) than 2.4.10.

Personally, I use cvs kernels so it does not affect me, what I said is just
my suggestion/opinion, choice is yours ;-)

> It is very likely that by the time a redhat 7.2 update disk comes along we 
> will probably have a newer version included anyways.

Those words doesn't speak against upgrading rpms ;-)


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>