Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> 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
>
>> OK.
>
>> Can you say anything about the stability of
>> patch-2.6.22.19-vs2.3.0.34.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 vs2.3.0.34 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 definitely not, it was superceded by all later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
> maintained upstream)
Well, I'm glad I asked.
Is there *anything* based on 2.6.22 that supports IPv6 that you would
consider suitable for production use?
Thanks,
Paul
> [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]
>
> best,
> Herbert
>
>> Thanks,
>> Paul
>
Received on Mon Jan 11 16:30:34 2010