On ons, 2007-02-14 at 13:06 -0800, Nathaniel Rutman wrote: > Niklas Edmundsson wrote: > > > > Searching for patchless in the bugzilla doesn't that much useful > > information... > > > > Seriously, this habit of saying "it's in the bugzilla" as an excuse > > for not documenting stuff is getting a bit annoying. The thing closest > > to an effort of collecting various information in a usable manner > > seems to be the wiki, and even though it should be rather easy to edit > > it seems to be hopelessly out of date. The front page shows all sorts > > of stuff that's probably obsolete, but useful stuff that's actually up > > to date (like the mountconf docco) isn't listed there. > > > > Yes, it will take some efforts to get the wiki up to speed but I think > > it will be worth the effort. > > I agree with you completely. Of course, there is plenty of other work > for us to do... > But we made you a special page: > https://mail.clusterfs.com/wikis/lustre/PatchlessClient
Are there any test suite that should be run to "certify" the patchless client for other (distribution specific) kernels? So that they can be added to the wiki too? /torkel _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
