On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 10:28:45AM -0600, Vincent Danen wrote:
>
> A while... unfortunately. The problem is that 2.4 is still really new
> so fixes are being introduced all of the time, as are bugs.
Understood.
> I think
> the kernel team is trying to find a happy medium where the kernel is
> stable and works without newly introduced bugs. The best way to test
> this is via cooker, which is why cooker kernel development is so
> fast-paced.
So none of the kernels that have come out in Cooker since 8.0 was
released were good enough?
> I agree, to some extent. The best/test kernels are needed to find a
> good kernel to supply for 8.0 updates.
I guess I question whether none of the dozens of kernels that have
come out in Cooker have been stable enough for general release.
> Again.. because 2.4 is still
> relatively new, bugs are introduced and fixed with each new revision.
Understood.
> We have to find the best kernel to update with. It does no one any
> good if we release a kernel in updates to just have to do it again
> right away due to another bug.
Agreed completely! Again I question the fact that not a single of the
dozens of the kernels released to Cooker have been stable enough. I
surely agree that some of them were not suitable, but at least one of
them has to have been better than what is in 8.0.
> To be honest, I can't say. I'm not the one working on the kernel...
I know. I think the question was to all of MDK, not necessarily you
Vince. I appreciate you chiming in and giving us some insight.
> I will try to find out, or at least find out an estimated ETA, but
> since I'm not the one working on the kernel, I don't want to give out
> false information.
I appreciate that. Again, my queries where to MDK as a group.
> Not at all true. Cooker is the vehicle used for finding a stable
> kernel. Cooker is absolutely necessary in order to find a good
> kernel.
Absolutely! And don't get me wrong. I love Cooker. It is probably
the most important reason I use MDK.
> To all of a sudden stop utilizing cooker and the many testers
> who test the kernels will cause problems in the long run.
I understand that too. I just suspect that more time and attention
needs to be paid to whether each kernel release really is stable or
not. I don't know if this is the case, but it seems that each kernel
is getting cranked out just to get the latest one out (this is the
good part) there without any time being taken out to decide if the
last release was actually stable enough for general release (this is
the bad part).
> Fair enough, but many people do care about this (myself included).
I know. It is for this reason that I am expressing my views. I am
doing it for those who can't run the risk of picking up the latest
Cooker kernel hoping it is stable.
> I'll find out what I can from the kernel team and see if we can't get
> something into updates as soon as possible.
Thanks. I am sure there are many here (and not here) that would
appreciate it.
b.
--
Brian J. Murrell
