Ext3 users - Oct 2001 - 2.4.13 Stability?

Hiya,

Now that 2.4.13 has been release, any word on how stable ext3 is on this?
Hope they haven't broken anything in the vm again....;) I'm currently
running
2.4.8 and I'm very happy with it and given the nightware over the past few
releases, just wanted to find out what the state-of-play is at the moment.

	-=David

**************************************************************************************************
The views expressed in this E-mail are those of the author and not necessarily
those of Knowledge Management Software.
If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering
to the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this E-mail
in error and that any use is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify us by forwarding this
E-mail to the following address:

mailadmin@kmsoftware.com
**************************************************************************************************

Could the developers please post to ext3-users when the diff against
2.4.13-vanilla is commited into CVS?  Thanks.

Eugene

> On Oct 24, 2001  18:03 +0400, Eugene Crosser wrote:
> > Could the developers please post to ext3-users when the diff against
> > 2.4.13-vanilla is commited into CVS?  Thanks.
> 
> Give me a break.  I get Linus' post about 2.4.13 at 1:30 AM local time,
> and people are asking for a patch at 7:30 AM local time.  Please have
> some patience - the ext3 developers have lives as well.
No kidding.  But some of us don't have a life ;).

If you or anyone else wants a patch that compiles (but is NOT
NECESSARILY STABLE OR EVEN BOOTABLE), let me know and I can e-mail you
one.

I took the 2.4.13-pre6 patch and applied it to the 2.4.13 tree, and then
fixed the one patch reject.

NO GUARANTEES AT ALL!!!!  I have not even tried to boot the 2.4.13
kernel yet, so no testing has gone into this AT ALL.  It may not even
boot.

But if you want to try it, let me know.  I should have been able to boot
it and do some rudimentary testing by tomorrow (Oct. 25).

Bryan

>> On Oct 24, 2001  18:03 +0400, Eugene Crosser wrote:
>> > Could the developers please post to ext3-users when the diff
against
>> > 2.4.13-vanilla is commited into CVS?  Thanks.
>> 
>> Give me a break.  I get Linus' post about 2.4.13 at 1:30 AM local
time,
>> and people are asking for a patch at 7:30 AM local time.  Please have
>> some patience - the ext3 developers have lives as well.
>
>No kidding.  But some of us don't have a life ;).
>
>If you or anyone else wants a patch that compiles (but is NOT
>NECESSARILY STABLE OR EVEN BOOTABLE), let me know and I can e-mail you
>one.
>
>I took the 2.4.13-pre6 patch and applied it to the 2.4.13 tree, and then
>fixed the one patch reject.
>
>NO GUARANTEES AT ALL!!!!  I have not even tried to boot the 2.4.13
>kernel yet, so no testing has gone into this AT ALL.  It may not even
>boot.
>
>But if you want to try it, let me know.  I should have been able to boot
>it and do some rudimentary testing by tomorrow (Oct. 25).
>
Yeha - I've done this too - first time that I've ever manually fixed
rejects but it seems to work too - I'm now using it on three machines
here, one of which has software raid 5, and everything seems to be
hunky dorey.

I do think that it's a little unfortunate that people who clearly don't
know the current state of development continuously ask for new patches -
I realise that most of the time it's not their fault for not knowing.

A quick and easy solution would simply to have a status line at the top
of the ext3 homepage (and download page) which simply says what is
available and what isn't available - I think that if people know then
the developers may not have to get frustrated when new diffs are
demanded of them every other day.

(Incidentally, we are just fixing the reject by adding back in the
BH_JBD line arn't we?)

Cheers,

Matthew

-- 

Matthew Sackman
Nottingham,
ENGLAND

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this email are intended for the indicated recipient(s)
only. This may or may not be indicated in the above email as it is
enormously easy to fake email addresses (see the relevant RFCs).

For security reasons this email is likely to be gnupg signed. On the
other hand it may not be if I forgot to do so. In any case, if you
are reading this on a Windows based computer then there was no point
in me doing so (provided that I remembered) as your computer is most
likely being used by yourself and 2.8 other people at the same time
(normally without your consent).

No responsibility will be accepted by anyone for any of the contents
of this email. So tough. If in doubt, go compile Mozilla.
--------------------------------------------------------------------