On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:57:56AM -0700, Dan Peterson wrote: > I'm working on a Knoppix based project for a client where they'll have > an updated (from 4.0.2) set of packages and kernel. > > I'd like to use as recent of a kernel as possible (right now it's > 2.6.16.5) but from looking at this mailing list's archive, it sounds > like unionfs 1.2 and 2.6.16.* may not be in a completely "stable" > state. Am I correct in this statement?
It depends. It may seem that the code leading up to 1.2.0 is more unstable, but overall it might just be that we changed some defaults (e.g., delete=whiteout is the new default), but we added some new (optional) things, such as partial mmap, and (hopefully) soon fully working remount. > If so, what combination of unionfs and linux kernel would you suggest > for a solid build? Or is 2.6.16.5 and the cvs build solid enough for > all intents and purposes? You probably want to have some of the other users answer that. We (the developers) would want you to use the latest CVS :) > PS: Jeff mentioned eventual inclusion in the kernel on 24 Mar. Is > it going to be in 2.6.17 or will it be later? Since 2.6.17-rc1 came out a week ago, it is a safe bet that .17 is out of the question. (Linus is trying to not include too much new stuff after -rc1.) My guess is that .18 would be quite reasonable. This is my personal guess of what Linus would do, even if we submitted unionfs for review next week. Jeff. _______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list [email protected] http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
