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 definitely not, it was superceded by all later 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 >