> >Also, look at the number of changes that were made outside of arch/ia64.
> >I think I can count them all on one hand and they were all bug fixes. Do
> >you realistically think this affects stability of say, an x86 system?
>
> This is irrelevant. There was a code freeze and then a substantial amount
Itts highly relevant.
> around -pre6, the keyboards on all my machines began to malfunction (it's
> transmitting information to the keyboard correctly -- as if the clock was
> not running during transmit.)
So stop whining and start debugging
> 2.4.0 (gold) will still have problems (I'm betting quite a few.) Many people
> will be moving to 2.4.0 from 2.2 -- this will be the first "new" kernel
> they try out on their hardware. 2.3 has certainly seen a broad array of
> hardware, but it's only a very small fraction of the machines running linux.
> (I, for example, still have a machine running 1.2.13!)
I expect the first 'distribution vendor solid' 2.4 to be 2.4.5. Thats because
the first distribution solid 1.2 was 1.2.4, 2.0 was 2.0.5 (some might argue
later) and 2.2 was 2.2.5->2.2.6.
> And let's not forget... alot of 3rd party vendors aren't going to touch 2.3
> until it reaches the golden "2.4.0" - period. It's a bad idea to invest time
> in shooting at a rapidly moving target.
Most of those vendors will not have drivers in early 2.4 then. The priority
at 2.4.0 is stabilising the bugs that pop up from very wide testing not
merging drivers.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 21:00:15 EST