>> Am I insane? Am I the only one who believes that 'stable' means >> 'don't randomly fuck with it'? > >I believe "optional" means "can be disabled completely". ...and when a change this large introduces new bugs into the old and new implementations? This is desirable in a 'stable' kernel? "Stable" does not mean "only do things we're 95% sure won't break the universe." See the recent flamewar on linux-kernel... *recent* immediately relevant changes to stable kernels that resulted in 'a few missed details' caused alot of heartache. For example, all of my IDE code broke on 2.0.34 due to 'an insignificant change' that resulted in 'a missed detail'. Don;t play with fire around stable kernels. Monty - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems on recent Linux versions Joerg Schilling
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems on recent Linux versio... Richard Gooch
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems on recent Linux versions Joerg Schilling
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems on recent Linux versio... Richard Gooch
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems on recent Linux ve... Monty
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems on recent Linu... Richard Gooch
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems on recent ... Monty
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems on re... Dan Hollis
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems o... Monty
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems o... Dan Hollis
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems o... Monty
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems o... Dan Hollis
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems o... Richard Gooch
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems o... Theodore Y. Ts'o
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems o... Richard Gooch
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems o... Theodore Y. Ts'o
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems o... Richard Gooch
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems o... Richard Gooch
- Re: WG: AW: cdrecord problems o... Monty
