From owner-freebsd-current Fri Apr 23 0:19: 8 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from dslab7.cs.uit.no (dslab7.cs.UiT.No [129.242.16.27]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2914914F38 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 00:19:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from frodef@dslab7.cs.uit.no) Received: (from frodef@localhost) by dslab7.cs.uit.no (8.9.2/8.9.1) id JAA06708; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 09:15:52 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from frodef) To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: lnc0: broke for us between 3.1 and 4.0? References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Frode Vatvedt Fjeld Date: 23 Apr 1999 09:15:52 +0200 In-Reply-To: paul@originative.co.uk's message of "Tue, 20 Apr 1999 00:16:37 +0100" Message-ID: <2h3e1rbydz.fsf@dslab7.cs.uit.no> Lines: 22 User-Agent: Gnus/5.07008 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.80) Emacs/20.3 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG paul@originative.co.uk writes: > > From: Richard Tobin [mailto:richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk] > > Is this fix going into stable? (I'm a little surprised that such a > > change was considered appropriate for the stable branch in the first > > place.) > > I didn't think the memory allocation change was in stable but I may merge > the lnc changes back into -stable anyway since it's a cleaner way of doing > things. > > I've got some other lnc problems to fix first though. Will this take very long? Because my "stable" source tree has not produced a working kernel for me for several weeks because of this. And does this all mean that if I want my kernel source tree to be consistent more often than not (and any errors be fixed as soon as possible), I'd be better off switching from -stable to -current? -- Frode Vatvedt Fjeld To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message