[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Linux-cluster] GNBD, how good it is ?

Urm, no ..

I'm not on the kernel mailing list.
(Are you implying 2.6 is unstable ?!  It's way safer to use that 2.4 !!)

I'm inclined at this point to mention Fedora and all my years using Redhat and my relatively recent move to Gentoo .. suffice to say I picked up the code off a public news site and thought it was stable enough to play with. (and it's not)

How about some big notices on the source web pages to the effect that it's for experimental use only and should not be used near a production environment (?!)


On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 13:49 -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Friday 09 July 2004 12:42, Gareth Bult wrote:
> >Which press releases?
> Urm, how 'bout this one .. you might not call it a "press release",
> but I found it via an announcement on a news site ..
> maybe it's me but I don't see the words "development", "beta" or "not
> working yet" listed anywhere  .. ;-)

You found it on Linux Kernel Mailing List, and it's for 2.6.  Please 
draw your own conclusion ;-)

GFS 6.0 on 2.4 is the stable release.

> (Oopses listed on IRC when discovered, someone has them.. bmarzins I
> think..)


Gareth Bult <Gareth Bult co uk>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]