On Thu, July 28, 2011 10:42 am, Jarry wrote:
> On 28-Jul-11 15:36, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
>
>> options IMHO are:
>>
>> - 2.6.32.x (has performance issues, but is long term)
>> - 2.6.38.x (good performance, not longterm yet)
>> - 3.0.x (immature, but the future)
>
> May I ask why you did not include the latest longterm 2.6.35
> (which I'd personally vote for)?
possibly because 2.6.35 is not as well supported as 2.6.32 and until today i
questioned whether it was still maintained.
i've tracked both 2.6.32 & 2.6.35 for the last three months (because i'm
slowly standardizing from the former to the later due to newer hardware
requirements and only wanting to maintain a single kernel version).
the last 2.6.35 longterm release (2.6.35.13) was three months ago (exactly
from today, the 28th). during that time 2.6.32 has been updated 4 times
(.40 - .43). whenever i've heard about a new 2.6.32 release it's
reminded me to check on the status of 2.6.35 (looking in the linux-2.6.35.y &
longterm-queue-2.6.35 git repos on kernel.org) and until today (prompted by
your email) i hadn't seen any signs of life since early May.
it appears andi is working on it again, as of 2 days ago, and i don't mean to
disparage his work, but when greg has been releasing a new 2.6.32.y once or
twice a month without a single 2.6.35.y release for three months, which would
you choose?
corey
-- undefined@pobox.comReceived on Fri Jul 29 03:36:18 2011