On Wed, 3 Oct 2001 20:36:01 -0400, davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen)
wrote:
>In article <07f901c148b8$720a6230$1a01a8c0@allyourbase> dmaas@dcine.com wrote:
>| > The answer is to treat all linus/ac/aa/... kernels as development
>| > kernels. Don't treat anything as stable until it's been through
>| > a real QA cycle.
>|
>| I definitely have to second what you guys are saying here... 2.2.x is the
>| stable kernel series, 2.4.x is for caffeine-fueled developers who read the
>| LKML at least once every day...
>
> Not really. I have found that 2.4 kernels are usefully stable if you
>pick them carefully.
If you run kernels from the developers, you have joined the linux
development test team... whether you know it or not. The bug reports
coming in are the main output of the test team. Positive reports are
nice but contain relatively little information for developers. You may
get productive use, and that is nice, but it is not the primary
purpose of the test team.
john alvord
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 07 2001 - 21:00:31 EST