From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 05:12:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 05:12:46 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:2980 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 05:12:45 -0400 Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 11:12:29 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: jbradford@dial.pipex.com Cc: Linus Torvalds , jdickens@ameritech.net, mingo@elte.hu, jgarzik@pobox.com, kessler@us.ibm.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, saw@saw.sw.com.sg, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, richardj_moore@uk.ibm.com, andre@master.linux-ide.org Subject: Re: v2.6 vs v3.0 Message-ID: <20020929091229.GA1014@suse.de> References: <200209290716.g8T7GNwf000562@darkstar.example.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200209290716.g8T7GNwf000562@darkstar.example.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Sep 29 2002, jbradford@dial.pipex.com wrote: > > Anyway, people who are having VM trouble with the current 2.5.x series, > > please _complain_, and tell what your workload is. Don't sit silent and > > make us think we're good to go.. And if Ingo is right, I'll do the 3.0.x > > thing. > > I think the broken IDE in 2.5.x has meant that it got seriously less > testing overall than previous development trees :-(. Maybe after > halloween when it stabilises a bit more we'll get more reports in. 2.5 is definitely desktop stable, so please test it if you can. Until recently there was a personal show stopper for me, the tasklist deadline. Now 2.5 is happily running on my desktop as well. 2.5 IDE stability should be just as good as 2.4-ac. -- Jens Axboe