Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120119164234.GB21488>