On Thu, May 25, 2000, Ricky Beam <email@example.com> wrote:
> inclusion of the ia64 arch code despite not one
> physically available system for using it;
This is incorrect. There are many ia64 development systems. Not to
mention that production machines will almost definately be available
long before 2.6 is released (based on past development timelines).
Also, look at the number of changes that were made outside of arch/ia64.
I think I can count them all on one hand and they were all bug fixes. Do
you realistically think this affects stability of say, an x86 system?
> inclusion of devfs with a default
> of mounting over /dev at kernel startup;
This is incorrect as well. It is not the default.
> /var/shm... If one continually
> dicks with the tree, then nothing will ever reach a point where it can be
> labeled as "tested and stable" or ever approach "bug free".]
I have to agree here. However, some of your examples were poor.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 21:00:15 EST