Re: About 2.0.34 not being perfect
On 13 Jun 1998, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> >Sounds like it should go in extra, for now.
>
> OTOH our news server didn't survive longer then a day with 2.0.[0-3] and
> runs rockstable with 2.0.34 ...
My machine has been running .34 for two days now, I have a proxy server at
work that has been abused all day, I have another machine there that has
been running all week doing stressfull things.
I've never had the kernel glitch on any of these (thankfully!) Sounds like
there may be some obscure problems - I know the pre-patches did not work
well on master. Perhaps we should chuck .34 on murphy and master and see
how it handles there? - Let me know if it is likely to be put in hamm and
I'll see to this.
Jason
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: