From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailserv2.iuinc.com (IDENT:qmailr@mailserv2.iuinc.com [206.245.164.55]) by puffin.external.hp.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA13922 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 13:43:16 -0600 Received: from ottawa.linuxcare.com (HELO localhost) (216.208.98.2) by mailserv2.iuinc.com with SMTP; 1 Sep 2000 19:43:21 -0000 Received: from dhd by localhost with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 13UwhH-00060d-00 for ; Fri, 01 Sep 2000 15:41:55 -0400 To: parisc-linux@thepuffingroup.com From: David Huggins-Daines Date: 01 Sep 2000 15:41:55 -0400 Message-ID: <87r973lx18.fsf@linuxcare.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [parisc-linux] Branching "stable" 2.3.99pre8 kernel List-ID: Hi, As some people have probably heard me say in person, the current head branch of the kernel CVS tree is a substantial step backwards in speed and now stability from 2.3.99pre8, and is not really usable for me to do any user-space work on. My 2.3.99pre8 tree (see below) crashes *repeatably* and *deterministically* (with the exception of NFS which is basically crap anyway), and therefore I'm fixing them as I find them. In contrast, what we've got at the head of our CVS crashes *randomly* on my A180 and will not stay up long enough to run the configure script of any of the programs I have successfully built natively on 2.3.99pre8. I don't know whether this is because 2.4.0test5 is broken upstream, or whether we screwed up the merge, but it is simply unusable for my purposes. Therefore, until it gets fixed, I am using a hacked-up combination of the pre-merge 2.3.99pre8 and updated signal and trap handling code. I would like to tag this as a branch in CVS so that I can continue to fix kernel bugs that affect me without having to fully update to 2.4.0. Will people mind terribly if I do this? It should be trivial to merge changes from the branch as needed. -- dhd@linuxcare.com, http://www.linuxcare.com/ Linuxcare. Support for the revolution.