You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#1 2011-11-09 13:18:28
- mamciek
- Member
- Registered: 2011-09-27
- Posts: 6
wasn't kernel 3.1 a development (unstable) branch?
I have noticed that my kernel got upgrade from 3.0.x to 3.1. Unfortunately some problems with my instalations od virtualbox (which also was upgraded) have occured.
I have always thought that line with odd versions (like 2.5, 2.7, 3.1) was unstable development branch of Linux kernel. If that is true, then why Arch developers decided to use that version? Am I missing something?
Offline
#2 2011-11-09 13:24:32
- brain0
- Developer
- From: Aachen - Germany
- Registered: 2005-01-03
- Posts: 1,382
Re: wasn't kernel 3.1 a development (unstable) branch?
The whole Linux development model has changed - 8 years ago (or so). The versioning scheme has also changed. There are no "development releases", there haven't been any for almost a decade.
Offline
#3 2011-11-09 14:25:53
- wonder
- Developer
- From: Bucharest, Romania
- Registered: 2006-07-05
- Posts: 5,941
- Website
Re: wasn't kernel 3.1 a development (unstable) branch?
on the other hand, what's wrong with virtualbox?
Give what you have. To someone, it may be better than you dare to think.
Offline
#4 2011-11-09 15:20:14
- .:B:.
- Forum Fellow
- Registered: 2006-11-26
- Posts: 5,819
- Website
Re: wasn't kernel 3.1 a development (unstable) branch?
I have always thought that line with odd versions (like 2.5, 2.7, 3.1) was unstable development branch of Linux kernel.
That was true until 2.6 went gold. So for 7+ years, there was no old-style development branch anymore in the kernel.
Am I missing something?
You have been hiding under a rock, it seems.
Got Leenucks? :: Arch: Power in simplicity :: Get Counted! Registered Linux User #392717 :: Blog thingy
Offline
#5 2011-11-09 22:26:15
- mamciek
- Member
- Registered: 2011-09-27
- Posts: 6
Re: wasn't kernel 3.1 a development (unstable) branch?
mamciek wrote:I have always thought that line with odd versions (like 2.5, 2.7, 3.1) was unstable development branch of Linux kernel.
That was true until 2.6 went gold. So for 7+ years, there was no old-style development branch anymore in the kernel.
Thanks folks for information
Am I missing something?
You have been hiding under a rock, it seems.
Yes - I must have overslept this moment 
Offline
#6 2011-11-09 22:31:41
- mamciek
- Member
- Registered: 2011-09-27
- Posts: 6
Re: wasn't kernel 3.1 a development (unstable) branch?
on the other hand, what's wrong with virtualbox?
I should post it another thread I suppose. Meanwhile I have issued it here: https://github.com/mitchellh/vagrant/issues/553
I don't really now if it is an issue of new kernel, new virtualbox or vagrant itself. The thing is I cannot import ovf file into VirtualBox:
VBoxManage: error: Details: code VBOX_E_FILE_ERROR (0x80bb0004), component Appliance, interface IAppliance, callee
Context: "ImportAppliance" at line 793 of file VBoxManageAppliance.cppOffline
#7 2011-11-10 01:03:33
- bangkok_manouel
- Member
- From: indicates a starting point
- Registered: 2005-02-07
- Posts: 1,557
Re: wasn't kernel 3.1 a development (unstable) branch?
Offline
#8 2011-11-10 01:12:39
- graysky
- Wiki Maintainer
- From: :wq
- Registered: 2008-12-01
- Posts: 10,734
- Website
Re: wasn't kernel 3.1 a development (unstable) branch?
bangkok_manual - wtf?
Offline
#9 2011-11-10 01:24:13
- Gusar
- Member
- Registered: 2009-08-25
- Posts: 3,607
Re: wasn't kernel 3.1 a development (unstable) branch?
bangkok_manual - wtf?
What, you're not familiar with pokemon? This particular one, I'm not sure if his name is exactly Slowpoke, but it's something veeery close to that.
Edit: It actually *is* Slowpoke: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/ … 3%A9mon%29
Last edited by Gusar (2011-11-10 01:28:46)
Offline