On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 10:26 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote: > are you 5 years old or what? OK ... I should not have sent this e-mail. It was totally immature and I apologize. I have been doing a lot of work trying to get CentOS 5 usable for FOSDEM and I was in a bad mood. Still does not make it right. > On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 09:24 -0500, Drew Weaver wrote: > > Well, possibly; but there are at least 4 different bugs in the > > current 4.4 tree that cause numerous issues with the most basic Intel > > hardware and no matter how much they get reported, they are still > > constantly ignored, but I guess the same bugs are present with the > > upstream; so its ok then. > > > > -Drew My comments about not forking the code still stand though ... we would introduce other potential problems if we release code that is not upstream ... and centos does not do that unless the package is totally not usable or compilable. If the bug issues do not exist upstream then we will work to fix them, if they do exist upstream then we can't do anymore than research them and submit a patch to fix, if we can figure it out. More often than not, these issues are carried down from upstream ... but sometimes they are not. If someone can show that under the exact same conditions (on the same box) a centos kernel exhibits a problem and the exact same version of the upstream kernel does not, then I can promise you I will do my best to fix that issue. Thanks, Johnny Hughes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
