On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Daniel T. Chen wrote: > On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote: > > > As far as stability, 0.9.6 has given me no problems, but I also haven't > > exercised it that much. There have been a few troubles with 0.9.9. I > > wouldn't touch 0.9.9 + Linux 2.4.10 with a 10-foot stick: major VM changes > > + new filesystem == bad ju ju. > > You really did mean to say that you "wouldn't touch 0.9.10 + Linux 2.4.10 > with a 10-foot stick," didn't you? (Forgive my obtuseness if that's not > the case... 0.9.9 + Ted's dir speedup patch + Linux 2.4.9-ac12 has worked > just fine here for quite a while...) From all reports on lkml, problems > are surfacing in 0.9.10...
Actually, I did mean what I said. The VM in 2.4.10 and 2.4.9-ac have diverged significantly. That is to say, they are completely different. Kernel development is moving *very* quickly these days. For data with value, I let a few million other people test these new releases before I go after them. 0.9.10 + 2.4.10 would require a 15-foot stick at least. -jwb
