> > Alan, why haven't these gone into 2.2.13 after pre18 already had these
> > troubles reportedly? It's not a good idea forcing 2.2.13 out if there
> > are reported breaking issues to the last -preXX version.
> >
>
> Because almost no configurations people use caused it and because you don't
> change things like boot strap code just before a final release. You risk
> having something that doesnt work at all.
It is still an issue that can easily be resolved during the test phase,
that's what -pre versions essentially are made for, aren't they?
The trouble about this is that using the very same configuration that
worked for 2.2.12 with all new offerings made by "make oldconfig" breaks
2.2.13 - this is annoying.
I just cannot see why there haven't been 2.2.13pre19 or something as
release candidate versions with the bootloader fix - if people say it
works, rename it to 2.2.13 and there you go.
I'm not telling you anything new; I have however the impression that
something I don't see has urged you to finally release 2.2.13 very fast
after a prolonged time of beta testing. I'm not sure if this is the
truth, But this "2.2.13 cannot boot" need not have happened.
> > I appreciate good testing, but I am very incontent with getting 2.2.13
> > that does not even boot. This issue WAS reported and it SHOULD HAVE BEEN
> > addressed.
>
> If you wish to insult me my consulting rates are available by return of
> email.
I'm not going to insult you, I'm just annoyed by 2.2.13 not booting
although the bug had been reported. What were the objections against
another couple of days beta-testing NEW boot-strap code?
-- Matthias AndreeHi! I'm the infamous .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
- 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/