I _NEVER_ wrote anything remotely like "may break - don't test it",
so please don't attribute that statement to me.
I clearly stated that Linux kernels are not consistent, but especially
the experimental ones.
Just because kernel version X works, doesn't mean X + N will work.
Surely you don't dispute the logic of this?
At the very most I implied, "may break - don't use on a heart/lung
machine" (this is meant to be slightly humourous _TOO_).
> So Simon is doing exactly the right thing.. Don't flame people for
> reporting bugs.
I _NEVER_ wrote that Simon was doing "a bad thing". I wrote that
it did not make sense to expect a bug-free kernel, in an experimental
series of kernels, on the sole basis of the previous kernel working.
Linus, that was _FAR_ from being a flame. In fact, I attempted to
soften it with humour. I didn't have a stupid smiley, because
I thought it was obvious. Seems you have honest politicians in
Finland :-) (That was a joke _ALSO_ in case anyone missed it).
An intentional public berating to humiliate someone is a flame,
which is closer to what _YOU_ just wrote IMHO.
> As to why Simon sees the problems, I don't know yet. Duh.
>
> Linus
I have faith it will be solved. Maybe not in the next version, but
eventually. But I don't think even you can GUARANTEE every bug won't
come back, as the kernel is quite complex with subtle relationships
that even you, myself, and thousands of others sometimes overlook.
-- Andrew E. Mileski --
mailto:aem@ott.hookup.net
http://www.redhat.com/~aem/