[gentoo-dev] Re: Linux 2.6.21 plans
Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:16:26 -0700: As no one was actually fixing any of the remaining bugs that were reported, what were the kernel developers supposed to do, just sit around and wait another week for no reason? I wasn't intending to second-guess the decision (who me, a little nobody?), just pointing out that the ride to stability might not be so smooth this time, both from my experience and in the opinion of the guy who has been doing the regression tracking upstream... Now we have more people testing :) And yes, this release might be a bit more unstable due to the large core changes, but in my testing, I have had no problems. Agreed with both sentiments, even if I'm having a couple minor problems that could be related (unverified as yet). -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Linux 2.6.21 plans
Duncan wrote: I'm running (vanilla) rc7-git10 ATM, and have two possible regressions remaining here If reproducible on gentoo-soures-2.6.21, please file bug reports for them or they will get lost. Daniel -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Linux 2.6.21 plans
Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:00:41 -0400: Duncan wrote: I'm running (vanilla) rc7-git10 ATM, and have two possible regressions remaining here If reproducible on gentoo-soures-2.6.21, please file bug reports for them or they will get lost. Ugh. I hate it when I so publicly mis-type! =8^( It was 2.6.21-rc7- git8, not git10. Anyway, the X restore thing was (apparently) fixed since git4, but the clock thing's still an issue. I still have to eliminate a couple more things on my end, however, before bugging it. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Linux 2.6.21 plans
Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:56:25 -0400: This means that we may be pushing for 2.6.21 stable on x86 and amd64 on May 17th. If important issues come up (which they may well do), this will obviously be delayed, but do keep this date in mind. As I'm sure you are aware, there are more known regressions remaining this time around. As with some others, I'm not all that confident this kernel was ready for release just yet. Oh, well, I suppose there'll be a 2.6.21.1 and etc... I'm running (vanilla) rc7-git10 ATM, and have two possible regressions remaining here, which details kept me from properly testing and bugging upstream in a timely manner. Both are regressions as they worked before, but I'm not yet totally sure they are kernel regressions. Briefly, amd64, (1) system clock to hardware clock isn't syncing now, I'm not sure about hw2system as I use ntp, and (2) X was restoring after suspend to disk, but now breaks, such that I immediately return to the console the first time I try to switch to it after a suspend, and I must restart X. I'm still working on isolating both of them to the kernel, and didn't notice them until after rc7. Just heads-up on bugs you may see... if others who haven't been testing run into them as well. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Linux 2.6.21 plans
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 03:33:59AM +, Duncan wrote: Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:56:25 -0400: This means that we may be pushing for 2.6.21 stable on x86 and amd64 on May 17th. If important issues come up (which they may well do), this will obviously be delayed, but do keep this date in mind. As I'm sure you are aware, there are more known regressions remaining this time around. As with some others, I'm not all that confident this kernel was ready for release just yet. Oh, well, I suppose there'll be a 2.6.21.1 and etc... As no one was actually fixing any of the remaining bugs that were reported, what were the kernel developers supposed to do, just sit around and wait another week for no reason? Now we have more people testing :) And yes, this release might be a bit more unstable due to the large core changes, but in my testing, I have had no problems. thanks, greg k-h -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
