O, not . Distro DOES NOT test combinations, But distro users de facto test
them. Your uniq combination is never tested at all.
And it is primary difference. Can't talk about all distro's but have
impression that few I worked with don't test much - anyway, we know about
problems in advance from angry users.
How so? So you believe that the distro has FULLY tested every possible
combination of its drivers? If that were the case, why do they provide
newer versions of the packages in the first place. And when they do
provide a new package, you think they test that to the level you
suggested we need to qualify ocfs2 as stable? How many packages have you
seen in a distro that were provided and have WELL KNOWN bugs? I can't
count the number. I have even seen distros release a new version KNOWING
that many huge bugs have not been fixed and I mean documented bugs.
The source for a module should be just that. How does it differ than
when it is patched into the kernel by the kernel devs? It should not be
different or why provide source in the first place. We are talking about
a driver and only a driver. Once again, I believe upgrading the whole
kernel just to upgrade one of the thousands of drivers is just
overkill.
Vice versa - making your own uniq combination of driver and kernel is much
more dangerous. Of course, exceptions always do exists.
_______________________________________________
Ocfs2-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users
