Re: 2.4 vs. 2.2

[Frank R. G. P. <pe...@he...>]

On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 05:37:39PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> I perfectly understand users who stick to 2.2 for now when they have found out
> that 2.4 doesn't meet their needs yet.

Only that there is the shared memory problem that prevents burning CDs in 
2.2.

> But development must take place in 2.4 or we will sooner rather than later
> have a (mostly) working but hopelessly outdated kernel and an up-to-date but
> broken one.

I agree. 
> 
> In order to iron out the issues in 2.4, we need more people to test it and
> report problems. And to achieve this we need new features in 2.4 exclusively.

Problems: 

- Internal serial hangs when IDE is active (probably unsolvable, it is worse
  in 2.2)
- Internal parallel does not work (garbage arrives at printer)
- MFCIII driver does not compile
- kernel crashes (reboot) when using ppp for more than 10 Minutes and heavy 
  transfer over serial.
- no acceleration for virge
- problems with BVision
- Onboard SCSI of CyberStormPPC does not work.

> That's why I think putting stuff like this in 2.2 is a bad idea.

Backports are OK, perhaps even mandatory though.
-- 
Dipl. Informatikingenieur ETH  Frank Petzold  <pe...@he...>
               ceterum censeo parvomollem esse delendam.