linux-kernel - Re: stable? quality assurance?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100713131112.26a3da54@varda>
Date:	Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:11:12 +0200
From:	Alejandro Riveira Fernández 
	<ariveira@...il.com>
To:	Martin Steigerwald <Martin@...htvoll.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: stable? quality assurance?

El Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:51:42 +0200
Martin Steigerwald <Martin@...htvoll.de> escribió:


> 
> One reason for a demand for me is best expressed by this question: Does 
> the kernel developer community want to encourage that a group of advanced 
> Linux users - but mostly non-developers - compile their own vanilla or 
> valnilla near kernels, provide wider testing and report a bug now and 
> then?
> 
> I can live with either answer. If not, I just will be much more reluctant 
> to try out new kernels.

 I for one stopped booting into -rc kernels.
 The fact that still have to patch my kernels with a *one* liner
 since 2.6.29 kernel [1] does not give me confidence on the "test
 report/bisect and it will be fixed" promise some have made in this
 threath
 
 [1] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13362
 

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)