Messages in this thread | | | From | (Tim Hollebeek) | Subject | Re: 2.0.31 : please! | Date | Tue, 15 Jul 1997 13:28:43 -0400 (EDT) |
| |
Dave Wreski writes ... > > > You also don't need to be a hacker to help. The biggest single problem with > > testing a new 2.0.x kernel is getting enough test data. Every single person > > who sticks 2.0.31pre3 (when its out) on a machine and sees if it works -even > > if the stick it on for the day and reboot back to 2.0.27 before they go > > I had an oops with pre-2, and reported it, but never got a response. My > subject was descriptive enough that the appropriate person should have > seen it. > > Is it normal procedure to not see a response to an oops? Now that the > bugs are less and less common, isn't it possible to keep a master list, > and check them off as time goes on (ie, the person that reported the bug > no longer can induce it?)
Great idea. It would be a lot of work. Are you volunteering?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Hollebeek | Disclaimer :=> Everything above is a true statement, Electron Psychologist | for sufficiently false values of true. Princeton University | email: tim@wfn-shop.princeton.edu ----------------------| http://wfn-shop.princeton.edu/~tim (NEW! IMPROVED!)
spamming idiots please email spam@franck.princeton.edu so I know who you are. Thanks for being stupid and doing this automatically.
| |