Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:42:34 -0700 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9 Message-ID: <20120119164234.GB21488@hemlock.hydra> In-Reply-To: <4EFDA3B50040906E@> References: <BLU160-W54C133B8003EF140C41EF7AE860@phx.gbl> <loom.20120119T094302-811@post.gmane.org> <4EFDA3B50040906E@>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:15:08AM +0100, Eduardo Morras wrote: > > I think that a full/complete update of the old installer to add it > support GEOM, ZFS, scripting and more newer features will consume > more manpower and resources than create a new one from scratch, > where the devs aren't chained by old code, backwards compatibility, > old restrictions and old point of views. This way, is easier correct > bugs, new features, simplify the installation and even automate it > to this new installer than try to add them to the old one. I'm curious: Is this just speculation, or have you determined this by reading the source of the old installer? Old code means *tested* code, and when it is well-maintained it often means easily extensible code. Is that the case for the old installer, or is the older installer a crufty mess of "temporary" fixes that became permanent, as your statements seem to imply? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120119164234.GB21488>