From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 29 Sep 2001 09:41:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 29 Sep 2001 09:41:29 -0400 Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com ([212.74.112.72]:36112 "EHLO mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 29 Sep 2001 09:41:25 -0400 Subject: Re: kernel changes From: Andrew Ebling To: Alan Cox Cc: pavel@md5.ca, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/0.14.99+cvs.2001.09.27.21.30 (Preview Release) Date: 29 Sep 2001 14:43:12 +0100 Message-Id: <1001770994.404.35.camel@kernighan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2001-09-28 at 23:06, Alan Cox wrote: > > been radically changed for "better". Now I don't trust 2.4 line > > kernel to work *at all*, so cautiously keep all old kernels in the /boot, > > when upgrading. > > It seems I am not only one and wonder if something will be done about that. > > You certainly aren't the only one. 2.4.10 both really alarms me and doesn't > survive over night on my test box. It would be better to be premature starting 2.5.x than to risk damaging the reputation of Linux by pretending an unproven kernel is stable. Lets start 2.5.x and let Alan sort 2.4.x out. Andrew