At 16:06 29/03/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>sure; every delta is critical for someone. but why do you think
>stability comes from slowing or refusing deltas? or perhaps you're
>just saying that you want to see a longer testing interval?
if delta == fix for an identified bug, then refusing them is obviously bad,
assuming the bugfix is itself ok
if delta == some (random) change someone thought would be nice, then
stability is not normally improved by adding them
I'm not sure what 'testing interval' you refer to?
>personally, I think there should be alpha (linus), beta (marcello)
>and gamma (maybe alan) streams, since some people really do seem
>to think marcello is moving too fast (he's way to slow for me.).
>or maybe it should be l-ac-m (well, it pretty much is, though I don't
>believe there's any formal analysis of how well-tested a delta is
>in ac's tree.)
I was under the impression that a 2.2.x/2.4.x2.6.x kernel was changed on
the premise that stability and correctness had high priority, and that
2.3.x/2.5.x/2.4.7.x were built on the premise that introducing new
features, optimizing and restructuring code, and addressing weaknesses had
high priority.
I guess, though, if someone said : 2.4.x is feature-complete: you can
_only_ fix bugs in it, then we'd have a revolt :-) So perhaps you're
right, and we need three paths:
- a 2.5-like path, where anything sensible goes
- a 2.4-like path, where a lot goes, but nothing too big :-)
- a new path, where stability is paramount.
Of course, you could say 'why don't I use 2.2.20, if I'm that worried'.
Well, 2.4. has a bunch of features (e.g. iptables, decent USB & ATM
support, ) that I need or want badly enough that I'm prepared to put up
with some hassle. So currently I'm trying to find a kernel that is good
enough to leave alone. 2.4.18-rc1 is pretty good so far, but looking
through the patches btw. rc1 and final, and .19, I wonder which of the
fixed bugs I might hit next. Problem is, I have been looking for the 'good'
kernel for a while: trying 2.4.6, 2.4.8, 2.4.15, 2.4.17, 2.4.18rc1 -- I'm
starting to wonder when it might get here.
>finally, noone has enough time for as much testing as they should do.
>more trees just make this worse. if you're concerned about the stability
>of the stable branch, are you doing something to improve testing?
I try. I don't have a huge amount of time, but I'm using 2.4.18-rc1 on a
gateway box that is ADSL connected through a USB SpeedTouch; sometimes, the
ADSL IP link *just dies*; I am running with lots of logging to find out
more, and am slowly looking through the sources by hand to try to find
problems 'in my head'. It is hard going, and not any easier for the
SpeedTouch firmware being closed.
Anyway, enough!
Ruth
> ...I have been looking for the 'good'
> kernel for a while: trying 2.4.6, 2.4.8, 2.4.15, 2.4.17, 2.4.18rc1 -- I'm
> starting to wonder when it might get here.
Personally, 2.4.16 works like a charm for me. I guess I'm the only one, am
I? :-)
[email protected] wrote:
>>...I have been looking for the 'good'
>>kernel for a while: trying 2.4.6, 2.4.8, 2.4.15, 2.4.17, 2.4.18rc1 -- I'm
>>starting to wonder when it might get here.
>>
>
>Personally, 2.4.16 works like a charm for me. I guess I'm the only one, am
>I? :-)
>
>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to [email protected]
>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
I use 2.4.16 kernel for my production machines and I love it (well, swap
a bit with 256mb ram, but it's right with 1gb, 128mb, 512mb, 32mb,
etc... 256mb is a bad number for its vm I think)
Hi.
I think that you used exactly the worser kernels between the good ones
... ;-) 2.4.16 was really good and 2.4.18 is, too. 2.4.19-pre5 looks
also very promissing, so far.
On: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 08:07:12 -0300,
Pablo Alcaraz <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>...I have been looking for the 'good'
> >>kernel for a while: trying 2.4.6, 2.4.8, 2.4.15, 2.4.17, 2.4.18rc1 -- I'm
> >>starting to wonder when it might get here.
> >>
> >
> >Personally, 2.4.16 works like a charm for me. I guess I'm the only one, am
> >I? :-)
> >
> >
> >-
> >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> >the body of a message to [email protected]
> >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> >
> >
>
> I use 2.4.16 kernel for my production machines and I love it (well, swap
> a bit with 256mb ram, but it's right with 1gb, 128mb, 512mb, 32mb,
> etc... 256mb is a bad number for its vm I think)
k33p h4ck1n6
Ren?
--
Ren? Rebe (Registered Linux user: #248718 <http://counter.li.org>)
eMail: [email protected]
[email protected]
Homepage: http://drocklinux.dyndns.org/rene/
Anyone sending unwanted advertising e-mail to this address will be
charged $25 for network traffic and computing time. By extracting my
address from this message or its header, you agree to these terms.
On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 15:11:07 +0200 (CEST)
Rene Rebe <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I think that you used exactly the worser kernels between the good ones
> ... ;-) 2.4.16 was really good and 2.4.18 is, too. 2.4.19-pre5 looks
> also very promissing, so far.
What's wrong with the 2.4.17 kernel? I have'n had a better one since the 2.2.19 :)
>
> On: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 08:07:12 -0300,
> Pablo Alcaraz <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > >>...I have been looking for the 'good'
> > >>kernel for a while: trying 2.4.6, 2.4.8, 2.4.15, 2.4.17, 2.4.18rc1 -- I'm
> > >>starting to wonder when it might get here.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Personally, 2.4.16 works like a charm for me. I guess I'm the only one, am
> > >I? :-)
> > >
> > >
> > >-
> > >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > >the body of a message to [email protected]
> > >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > >Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I use 2.4.16 kernel for my production machines and I love it (well, swap
> > a bit with 256mb ram, but it's right with 1gb, 128mb, 512mb, 32mb,
> > etc... 256mb is a bad number for its vm I think)
>
> k33p h4ck1n6
> Ren?
>
> --
> Ren? Rebe (Registered Linux user: #248718 <http://counter.li.org>)
>
> eMail: [email protected]
> [email protected]
>
> Homepage: http://drocklinux.dyndns.org/rene/
>
> Anyone sending unwanted advertising e-mail to this address will be
> charged $25 for network traffic and computing time. By extracting my
> address from this message or its header, you agree to these terms.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
--
Best regards, Erik
On: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 20:59:18 +0200,
Erik Ljungstr?m <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 15:11:07 +0200 (CEST)
> Rene Rebe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > I think that you used exactly the worser kernels between the good ones
> > ... ;-) 2.4.16 was really good and 2.4.18 is, too. 2.4.19-pre5 looks
> > also very promissing, so far.
>
> What's wrong with the 2.4.17 kernel? I have'n had a better one since the 2.2.19 :)
It procuded unresolved symbols in several configs and oopsed in the
ipv6 support ... - I did not experienced this with 2.4.16 or 2.4.18
;-) - I did not saw 2.2 kernels for years ;-)
The only problems I had with 2.4 were the NFS+reiserfs and
NFS+smy-links problems and the obvious broken 2.4.9 (or was it .10?)
and 2.4.15 ...
k33p h4ck1n6
Ren?
--
Ren? Rebe (Registered Linux user: #248718 <http://counter.li.org>)
eMail: [email protected]
[email protected]
Homepage: http://drocklinux.dyndns.org/rene/
Anyone sending unwanted advertising e-mail to this address will be
charged $25 for network traffic and computing time. By extracting my
address from this message or its header, you agree to these terms.
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 09:55:34PM +0200, Rene Rebe wrote:
> The only problems I had with 2.4 were the NFS+reiserfs and
> NFS+smy-links problems and the obvious broken 2.4.9 (or was it .10?)
> and 2.4.15 ...
2.4.{10,11,15}
> What's wrong with the 2.4.17 kernel? I have'n had a better one since the 2.2.19 :)
I'm with you on that....i put it on one machine and threw away the
redhat rpm to find that i needed it a week later for another machine and
redhat had released their 2.4.18. So had to make it by hand for a
change. 2.4.17 does well at everything while not giving oopses.
also alan's 2.4.13 was really good too.
daniel.e.shipton