On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 08:55:58PM +0100, Andr? Dahlqvist wrote:
> I was very surprised when I checked my local kernel.org mirror this
> morning, and noticed that the latest 2.4.1 pre-patch had grown to
> ~180 kb in size. I was even more surprised when I realized that the
> inclusion of reiserfs w
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
=?us-ascii?Q?Andr=E9?= Dahlqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Don't get me wrong, I am personally really excited that reiserfs was
>included. I just thought that you basically wanted 2.4.1 to be "boring".
Reiserfs inclusion in 2.4.1 was basically the plan for the
Hi Linus
I was very surprised when I checked my local kernel.org mirror this
morning, and noticed that the latest 2.4.1 pre-patch had grown to
~180 kb in size. I was even more surprised when I realized that the
inclusion of reiserfs was the reason for this. While I am certainly
happy for the reis
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 06:40:21PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> I wasn't aware Andrea switched the way he stored his patches
> lately ;)
he's doing that for quite some time now (for suse's kernels too) and
that works pretty well :-)
> OTOH, the advantage of having a big patch means that it's
>
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Ingo Oeser wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 02:37:47PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Once we are sure 2.4 is stable for just about anybody I
> > will submit some of the really trivial enhancements for
> > inclusion; all non-trivial patches I will maintain in a
> > VM bigpatch,
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 02:37:47PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Once we are sure 2.4 is stable for just about anybody I
> will submit some of the really trivial enhancements for
> inclusion; all non-trivial patches I will maintain in a
> VM bigpatch, which will be submitted for inclusion around
>
On 6 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> In short, releasing 2.4.0 does not open up the floor to just
> about anything. In fact, to some degree it will probably make
> patches _less_ likely to be accepted than before, at least for a
> while.
I think this is an excellent idea. To help with this I'
> rather spend the time _really_ beating on the patches that _would_ be a
> big issue. Things like security (_especially_ remote attacks), outright
> crashes, or just totally unusable systems because it can't see the
> harddisk.
In which case the priority should be fixing all the broken LFS sup
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> I thought I'd mention the policy for 2.4.x patches so that nobody gets
> confused about these things. In some cases people seem to think that
> "since 2.4.x is out now, we can relax, go party, and generally goof
> off".
>
> Not so.
Sounds like a perfectly valid argume
I thought I'd mention the policy for 2.4.x patches so that nobody gets
confused about these things. In some cases people seem to think that
"since 2.4.x is out now, we can relax, go party, and generally goof
off".
Not so.
The linux kernel has had an interesting release pattern: usually the .0
10 matches
Mail list logo
