2001-11-29 12:48:08

by pil

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: About 2.4.16

Congratulations,

after 2.4.10 the next usable linux.
So it wouldn't be unwise to do it 6 times slower IMHO.

Kind regards

Wolfgang Pichler


2001-11-29 13:10:41

by Martin Eriksson

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: About 2.4.16

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 1:46 PM
Subject: About 2.4.16


> Congratulations,
>
> after 2.4.10 the next usable linux.
> So it wouldn't be unwise to do it 6 times slower IMHO.

Oh.. 2.4.13 was pretty usable too, so maybe 3 times slower?

_____________________________________________________
| Martin Eriksson <[email protected]>
| MSc CSE student, department of Computing Science
| Ume? University, Sweden


2001-11-29 14:34:43

by Andrew Ebling

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: About 2.4.16

On Thu, 2001-11-29 at 12:46, [email protected] wrote:
> Congratulations,
>
> after 2.4.10 the next usable linux.
> So it wouldn't be unwise to do it 6 times slower IMHO.

You forgot the patch, please resend... ;)

Andy

http://www.kernelhacking.org

2001-11-29 15:07:25

by pil

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: About 2.4.16

Martin Eriksson wrote:
>

>
> Oh.. 2.4.13 was pretty usable too, so maybe 3 times slower?
>

Not for me. I reported an hfs-bug for 2.4.12 up to 2.4.14. So 6 times
slower would be the best for the users and - I guess - developers too.

Regards

W. Pichler

2001-11-29 20:52:23

by Mike Fedyk

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: About 2.4.16

On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 04:04:49PM +0100, [email protected] wrote:
> Martin Eriksson wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Oh.. 2.4.13 was pretty usable too, so maybe 3 times slower?
> >
>
> Not for me. I reported an hfs-bug for 2.4.12 up to 2.4.14. So 6 times
> slower would be the best for the users and - I guess - developers too.
>

more/faster -pre and less/slower releases.

2001-11-30 00:41:15

by John Alvord

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: About 2.4.16

On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:51:52 -0800, Mike Fedyk <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 04:04:49PM +0100, [email protected] wrote:
>> Martin Eriksson wrote:
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > Oh.. 2.4.13 was pretty usable too, so maybe 3 times slower?
>> >
>>
>> Not for me. I reported an hfs-bug for 2.4.12 up to 2.4.14. So 6 times
>> slower would be the best for the users and - I guess - developers too.
>>
>
>more/faster -pre and less/slower releases.

The true limiting factor is getting an adaquate test environments run.
Slowing releases down wouldn't increase that much..

john alvord

2001-11-30 01:38:45

by Anthony DeRobertis

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: About 2.4.16


On Thursday, November 29, 2001, at 07:40 , John Alvord wrote:

> The true limiting factor is getting an adaquate test environments run.
> Slowing releases down wouldn't increase that much..

Considering the number of those that did not compile, had errors
introduced between -pre and final effecting everyone, etc., I
doubt that.

2001-11-30 08:36:23

by pil

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: About 2.4.16

Mike Fedyk wrote:
>

> more/faster -pre and less/slower releases.

Thats it. The way the 'old' 2.2.x was done. Slowering releases means
slowering problems any way.

Regards

W. Pichler