From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 03:22:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 03:22:34 -0400 Received: from 64-42-29-14.atgi.net ([64.42.29.14]:59404 "HELO mail.clouddancer.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 03:22:23 -0400 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.8-ac8 In-Reply-To: <9lsfn5$kr2$1@ns1.clouddancer.com> In-Reply-To: <200108210140.f7L1eQ612898@jupter.networx.com.br> <9lsfn5$kr2$1@ns1.clouddancer.com> Reply-To: klink@clouddancer.com Message-Id: <20010821072237.A98EC7840B@mail.clouddancer.com> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 00:22:37 -0700 (PDT) From: klink@clouddancer.com (Colonel) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In clouddancer.list.kernel, you wrote: > >I think is fair to say that alan's tree tracks linus' rather than sync's >with it... > >it's also observable that there are a few things (from the mailing list >traffic at least) in .9 that's perhaps shouldn't be merged into ac until >linus has returned from vaction an examined the submitted patches/twiddled >with it a bit himself... > >joelja I hope it stays that way for awhile. I get much better performance (subjective, don't know how to benchmark ~2-3x virtual desktop switching) than with any recent linus kernel. Even playing with a little 500M SQL database doesn't hinder the system anymore. Thanks! >On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Thiago Vinhas de Moraes wrote: > >> >> Alan, >> >> I'm sorry if it was previously answered, but why your tree is currently not >> in sync with Linus's tree? >> >> Regards, >> Thiago -- Windows 2001: "I'm sorry Dave ... I'm afraid I can't do that."