Re: 2.0.31 : please!
Tim Hollebeek (tim@franck.Princeton.EDU)
Tue, 15 Jul 1997 13:28:43 -0400 (EDT)
Dave Wreski writes ...
>
> > You also don't need to be a hacker to help. The biggest single problem with
> > testing a new 2.0.x kernel is getting enough test data. Every single person
> > who sticks 2.0.31pre3 (when its out) on a machine and sees if it works -even
> > if the stick it on for the day and reboot back to 2.0.27 before they go
>
> I had an oops with pre-2, and reported it, but never got a response. My
> subject was descriptive enough that the appropriate person should have
> seen it.
>
> Is it normal procedure to not see a response to an oops? Now that the
> bugs are less and less common, isn't it possible to keep a master list,
> and check them off as time goes on (ie, the person that reported the bug
> no longer can induce it?)
Great idea. It would be a lot of work. Are you volunteering?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hollebeek | Disclaimer :=> Everything above is a true statement,
Electron Psychologist | for sufficiently false values of true.
Princeton University | email: tim@wfn-shop.princeton.edu
----------------------| http://wfn-shop.princeton.edu/~tim (NEW! IMPROVED!)
spamming idiots please email spam@franck.princeton.edu so I know who you are.
Thanks for being stupid and doing this automatically.