<OT> New kernels... new bugs... new problems... new woes...

[Jerry McBride]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 11:41:52 -0700 Net Llama! <netllama at linux-sxs.org>
wrote:

---snipped my original message---

> I think your'e missing the entire point of the unstable tree.  Its not 
> there solely for people to play with the assorted new features that get 
> thrown in.  And no where is there any promise of stability or usability.
>

Yes, I've missed something, but why even post a kernel source package that
doesn't even compile %70? It'd be better to keep it under wraps in CVS, at
least until the damn thing compiles. :')

>   A Rolls Royce is akin to the 2.4.x tree, not the 2.5.x tree.  There 
> were *alot* of 2.3.x kernels that were completely and utterly broken, 
> and were basically released simply because some folks needed to test how
> well some new code integrated into the tree.
> 

The only way to test source code integration is to compile it. Clearly,
the stuff being posted isn't being compiled as a complete project. Yeah
the various portions may compile just fine, clean as a whistle... but as a
whole it... well... doesn't.

My humble perception is... the new kernel versions are being posted for a
reason other than what they are intended for. What it is? I dunno.

--- 

*************************************************************************
*****                     Registered Linux User Number 185956
          http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&group=linux
     2:59pm  up 45 days, 20:15,  2 users,  load average: 0.01, 0.02, 0.00