From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:53:13 -0200 (BRDT) From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] with 2.4.1, should I use beta2 or beta3 lvm-tools? In-Reply-To: <20010202103049.B872@66bassett.freeserve.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="iso-8859-1" To: linux-lvm@sistina.com On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Joe Thornber wrote: > On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 11:15:25AM +0100, H=EF=BF=BDkan Jettingstad wrote: > >=20 > > Just a quick question, kernel 2.4.1 contains lvm 0.9.1beta2, so I'm > > wondering do I have to use the beta2 lvm-tools or can I use the beta3 > > lvm-tools with that kernel, or do I have to wait for a beta3 patch for = the > > 2.4.1 kernel? >=20 > Please use the latest code if you can. The LVM tar balls will > build a patch for your kernel. If you don't want to patch your > kernel yourself then use the latest tools with 2.4.1, but you > should probably refrain from using snapshots. We hope to make > another release at the beginning of next week (probably beta4). Who cares ? As far as the majority of the LVM users are concerned, new releases are shipped by Alan and Linus. I guess having a separate LVM tree for development is good, but it might be better to just do maintenance on the tree which is actually being used - ie. Linus'. regards, Rik -- Linux MM bugzilla: http://linux-mm.org/bugzilla.shtml Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose... http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/