Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 21:03:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 21:03:17 -0400 Received: from adsl-63-194-239-202.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net ([63.194.239.202]:27635 "EHLO mmp-linux.matchmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 21:03:17 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 18:05:29 -0700 From: Mike Fedyk To: Adam McKenna Cc: David Lang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: The latest -ac patch to the stable Linux kernels Message-ID: <20020410010529.GC23513@matchmail.com> Mail-Followup-To: Adam McKenna , David Lang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20020409233710.GD22300@flounder.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:47:47PM -0700, David Lang wrote: > all the -ac kernels need to be treated as -pre > Exactly. > if you watch in detail you can pick ones that are more likly to be stable > then others, but some of them will be intentionally cutting edge. > Alan does have a track record of stable kernels, but his tree does have quite a lot of experimental patches in it. He does warn about patches that could be quite bad though (think ide and the recent suspend patches). In fact, I'm using some -ac kernels in production after it has survived on my workstation for a while and there haven't been any bug reports for the stuff I use... Also, 2.4.18 is the first time that I've seen Alan have -ac patches directly against 2.4.xx instead of 2.4.xx-pre. Unless he says otherwise I wouldn't expect that to happen again. Mike - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/