Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 08:11:24 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Gabor Kovesdan <gabor@freebsd.org>, Randi Harper <randi@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r209832 - head/usr.sbin/sysinstall Message-ID: <201007090811.25079.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1007081623440.17178@yncgbc.qbhto.arg> References: <201007082126.o68LQQx1032102@svn.freebsd.org> <AANLkTikFr4T0sySaOi5qdvDi4qcbfon_ZZbN-h9_5nNI@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1007081623440.17178@yncgbc.qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday, July 08, 2010 7:26:33 pm Doug Barton wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Randi Harper wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Gabor Kovesdan <gabor@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> Em 2010.07.08. 23:26, Randi Harper escreveu: > >>> > >>> Author: randi > >>> Date: Thu Jul 8 21:26:26 2010 > >>> New Revision: 209832 > >>> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/209832 > >>> > >>> Log: > >>> Revert r209787 pending further discussion. > >>> > >>> Approved by: cperciva (mentor) > >>> > >> > >> Thanks! As I mentioned on IRC, I'll also try to improve this feature, I'm > >> just very busy with other projects at the moment. > > Unfortunately the road to the current sysinstall hell was paved with > just such good intentions. My suggestion is that we all get out of the > way of the people who are, actually, DOING the work. :) > > > As was mentioned on IRC, I think a good stopgap would be to at least > > remove the upgrade option from the main menu. It's not really an > > acceptable form of upgrade, it doesn't do an intelligent merging of > > config files. It would be better placed in the Fixit submenu if we're > > going to be leaving it around for a while and renaming it to something > > like "Mangle My Filesystem". :P > > Sounds like a better option would be to just remove it from the menu > altogether and ifdef 0 the code. That way if $SOMEONE wants to step in > and fix the existing code within a reasonable period of time (6 months > or less?) then they will still have that option, but users won't suffer > in the meantime. Well, this assumes that the existing code is completely broken, but that isn't true. Some people find the existing functionality useful. I'm sure it could be improved, but if the existing functionality is useful I don't see why it has to be disabled. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201007090811.25079.jhb>