About 2.4.16

About 2.4.16

[pil]

Congratulations,

after 2.4.10 the next usable linux.
So it wouldn't be unwise to do it 6 times slower IMHO.

Kind regards

Wolfgang Pichler

Re: About 2.4.16

[Martin Eriksson]

----- Original Message -----
From: <pil@mailnet.de>
To: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 1:46 PM
Subject: About 2.4.16


> Congratulations,
>
> after 2.4.10 the next usable linux.
> So it wouldn't be unwise to do it 6 times slower IMHO.

Oh.. 2.4.13 was pretty usable too, so maybe 3 times slower?

_____________________________________________________
|  Martin Eriksson <nitrax@giron.wox.org>
|  MSc CSE student, department of Computing Science
|  Umeå University, Sweden

Re: About 2.4.16

[Andrew Ebling]

On Thu, 2001-11-29 at 12:46, pil@mailnet.de wrote:
> Congratulations,
> 
> after 2.4.10 the next usable linux.
> So it wouldn't be unwise to do it 6 times slower IMHO.

You forgot the patch, please resend... ;)

Andy

http://www.kernelhacking.org

Re: About 2.4.16

[pil]

Martin Eriksson wrote:
> 

> 
> Oh.. 2.4.13 was pretty usable too, so maybe 3 times slower?
> 

Not for me. I reported an hfs-bug for 2.4.12 up to 2.4.14. So 6 times
slower would be the best for the users and - I guess - developers too.

Regards

W. Pichler

Re: About 2.4.16

[Mike Fedyk]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 04:04:49PM +0100, pil@mailnet.de wrote:
> Martin Eriksson wrote:
> > 
> 
> > 
> > Oh.. 2.4.13 was pretty usable too, so maybe 3 times slower?
> > 
> 
> Not for me. I reported an hfs-bug for 2.4.12 up to 2.4.14. So 6 times
> slower would be the best for the users and - I guess - developers too.
> 

more/faster -pre and less/slower releases.

Re: About 2.4.16

[John Alvord]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:51:52 -0800, Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 04:04:49PM +0100, pil@mailnet.de wrote:
>> Martin Eriksson wrote:
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> > Oh.. 2.4.13 was pretty usable too, so maybe 3 times slower?
>> > 
>> 
>> Not for me. I reported an hfs-bug for 2.4.12 up to 2.4.14. So 6 times
>> slower would be the best for the users and - I guess - developers too.
>> 
>
>more/faster -pre and less/slower releases.

The true limiting factor is getting an adaquate test environments run.
Slowing releases down wouldn't increase that much..

john alvord

Re: About 2.4.16

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Thursday, November 29, 2001, at 07:40 , John Alvord wrote:

> The true limiting factor is getting an adaquate test environments run.
> Slowing releases down wouldn't increase that much..

Considering the number of those that did not compile, had errors 
introduced between -pre and final effecting everyone, etc., I 
doubt that.

Re: About 2.4.16

[pil]

Mike Fedyk wrote:
> 

> more/faster -pre and less/slower releases.

Thats it. The way the 'old' 2.2.x was done. Slowering releases means
slowering problems any way.

Regards

W. Pichler