* About 2.4.16
@ 2001-11-29 12:46 pil
2001-11-29 13:10 ` Martin Eriksson
2001-11-29 14:34 ` Andrew Ebling
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: pil @ 2001-11-29 12:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: About 2.4.16
2001-11-29 12:46 About 2.4.16 pil
@ 2001-11-29 13:10 ` Martin Eriksson
2001-11-29 15:04 ` pil
2001-11-29 14:34 ` Andrew Ebling
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Martin Eriksson @ 2001-11-29 13:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pil, linux-kernel
----- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: About 2.4.16
2001-11-29 13:10 ` Martin Eriksson
@ 2001-11-29 15:04 ` pil
2001-11-29 20:51 ` Mike Fedyk
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: pil @ 2001-11-29 15:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin Eriksson, linux-kernel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: About 2.4.16
2001-11-29 15:04 ` pil
@ 2001-11-29 20:51 ` Mike Fedyk
2001-11-30 0:40 ` John Alvord
2001-11-30 8:36 ` pil
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Mike Fedyk @ 2001-11-29 20:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pil; +Cc: Martin Eriksson, linux-kernel
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: About 2.4.16
2001-11-29 20:51 ` Mike Fedyk
@ 2001-11-30 0:40 ` John Alvord
2001-11-30 1:37 ` Anthony DeRobertis
2001-11-30 8:36 ` pil
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: John Alvord @ 2001-11-30 0:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mike Fedyk; +Cc: pil, Martin Eriksson, linux-kernel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: About 2.4.16
2001-11-30 0:40 ` John Alvord
@ 2001-11-30 1:37 ` Anthony DeRobertis
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Anthony DeRobertis @ 2001-11-30 1:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John Alvord; +Cc: Mike Fedyk, pil, Martin Eriksson, linux-kernel
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: About 2.4.16
2001-11-29 20:51 ` Mike Fedyk
2001-11-30 0:40 ` John Alvord
@ 2001-11-30 8:36 ` pil
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: pil @ 2001-11-30 8:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: About 2.4.16
2001-11-29 12:46 About 2.4.16 pil
2001-11-29 13:10 ` Martin Eriksson
@ 2001-11-29 14:34 ` Andrew Ebling
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Ebling @ 2001-11-29 14:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pil; +Cc: linux-kernel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-11-30 8:36 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-11-29 12:46 About 2.4.16 pil
2001-11-29 13:10 ` Martin Eriksson
2001-11-29 15:04 ` pil
2001-11-29 20:51 ` Mike Fedyk
2001-11-30 0:40 ` John Alvord
2001-11-30 1:37 ` Anthony DeRobertis
2001-11-30 8:36 ` pil
2001-11-29 14:34 ` Andrew Ebling
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox