On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 04:40:16PM -0500, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
[compatibility stuff zapped]
> >strictly speaking ...
> >vs2.3.x .. development release
> >vs2.3.x.y ... experimental release
> Can you say anything about the stability of
> patch-22.214.171.124-vs126.96.36.199.diff from a practical perspective?
yes, it was our experimental branch back then when
2.6.22.x was the 'current' kernel
> Its been unchanged for some time now.
because experimental moved on with the kernel, i.e.
all development after 2.6.22.x happened on later
kernels, and there is no backporting in the experimental
branch, so vs188.8.131.52 stopped exaclty there
> Would you consider it suitable for "production" use?
definitely not, it was superceded by all later
experimental releases and we fixed quite a number
of issues since then, most of them have been backported
to the stable branch (at least as long as 2.6.22 was
[patching stuff zapped]
> Most likely our kernel people would do the porting, if we did it.
> But they are certainly not expert in either vserver or IPv6.
you can always ask us regarding Linux-VServer patches :)
> A lot of the porting can be done by anybody as long as the code being
> patched hasn't changed too much. But when things don't work right,
> they might not be in a position to diagnose the problem. And then it
> would be hard to come back and ask you nice people.
depends on the questions, really ... besides that, there
is always the option of hiring a Linux-VServer developer
to fix up/backport stuff ...
> Of course that may also be true merging patches. But I expect we won't
> be patching the same things.
[bug free release stuff zapped]
Received on Mon Jan 11 16:15:02 2010