On Wed, 10 May 2000, ADAM Sulmicki wrote:
> On 10 May 2000, Michael Poole wrote:
>
> > > > For example the 2.3.99-pre2 was corrupting data for me. And
> > > > this is supposedly stable kernel.
> >
> > 2.3.xx isn't supposedly stable, just hopefully stable -- it would have
> > an even minor number if it were really supposedly stable.
>
> Bad choice of words on my part. By "supposedly stable" kernel I meant that
> "it is unstable development kernel which is becoming stable since it is
> nearing end of development cycle for 2.3.x series".
See, the way I'm proposing, that would be implicit for a 2.3.9.2 kernel...
Deven
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 15 2000 - 21:00:16 EST