From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 2 17:28:10 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE6ABE4A for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 17:28:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike.jakubik@intertainservices.com) Received: from mail.intertainservices.com (mail.intertainservices.com [69.77.177.114]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 793898FC08 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 17:28:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.16.10.200] (unknown [172.16.10.200]) by mail.intertainservices.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 34F7F564E0; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:28:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1351877289.2657.3.camel@mjakubik.localdomain> Subject: Re: SU+J on 9.1-RC2 ISO From: Mike Jakubik To: Maxim Khitrov Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 13:28:09 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <5093F934.7050306@ose.nl> <5093FD3D.3080201@ateamsystems.com> <1351876381.2657.1.camel@mjakubik.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4 (3.4.4-2.fc17) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-intertainservices-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-intertainservices-MailScanner-ID: 34F7F564E0.AFEDA X-intertainservices-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-intertainservices-MailScanner-From: mike.jakubik@intertainservices.com X-Spam-Status: No Cc: Bas Smeelen , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Adam Strohl X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 17:28:10 -0000 On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 13:23 -0400, Maxim Khitrov wrote: > I don't think SU+J should even be an option in the installer as long > as this bug persists. If you don't use dump, go ahead and enable > journaling after the installation, but it's not a decision that new > users should be asked to make. This should not have been the default > in 9.0-RELEASE and I'm surprised to see that it's still not fixed in > 9.1. True, that would be in accordance with the FreeBSD POLA.