kiko wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Stephen Waters wrote:
>
> > Tom Livingston wrote:
> > >
> > > Jason A Diegmueller wrote:
> > > > NOTE: I can't go newer then 2.2.11 at this time due to the fact
> > > > the latest released raid0145 patch is for 2.2.11. RAID
> > > > people, I haven't tried it yet: Will it patch 2.2.12 without
> > > > too much hassle?
> > >
> > > Yep, the 2.2.11 raid patches work fine for 2.2.12. You will get one set of
> > > rejects in fs.h which you can safely ignore, as these patches were already
> > > made to 2.2.12
> >
> > it would be extremely nice for the powers-at-be to release a raid0145
> > patch that is just the 2.2.11 patch minus the fs.h section and name it
> > for 2.2.12 so that these questions would stop coming up unless said
> > powers feel that a new 2.2.12 release is imminent.
>
> Don't count on raid0145/0.9 going in anytime soon; the said powers don't
> reckon it's stable enough, to my amazement. Must be something I can't
> figure.
>
> The 2.2.12 patch should be out shortly, that said.
pardon me, i meant if a 2.2.12-raid0145 patch is imminent, then it's
pointless to put out a minor patch for it (raid0145-2.2.11 minus fs.h
stuff). if the raid0145-2.2.12 patch is a ways off, then said minor
patch would be useful to keep out list clutter.
2cents,
-stephen
