jbradford@dial.pipex.com wrote:
>>The block IO cleanups are important, and that was the major thing _I_
>>personally wanted from the 2.5.x tree when it was opened. I agree with you
>>there. But I don't think they are major-number-material.
>
>
> I'd definitely have voted for stable IPV6 being a 3.0.x requirement, but I guess it's a bit late now :-/
The USAGI guys have just started sending patches in, so there is already
progress on this front. And remember that stabilizing and bug fixing
can continue after Oct 31st... that's just the feature freeze date.
>>Anyway, people who are having VM trouble with the current 2.5.x series,
>>please _complain_, and tell what your workload is. Don't sit silent and
>>make us think we're good to go.. And if Ingo is right, I'll do the 3.0.x
>>thing.
>
>
> I think the broken IDE in 2.5.x has meant that it got seriously less testing overall than previous development trees :-(.
I think this is true, but hopefully recent progress on all fronts will
start encouraging testers to jump back in... I have not seen any
IDE-related corruption reports lately [but then maybe I missed them...]
BTW you should fix your word wrap :)
Jeff
-
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 : Mon Sep 30 2002 - 22:00:39 EST