Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:29:39 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org, Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Why not just name the cam-ata devices the same as the old names? Message-ID: <4DB70F13.6060002@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20110426182017.GA92471@freebsd.org> References: <4DB70949.6090104@FreeBSD.org> <20110426182017.GA92471@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 04/26/2011 11:20, Alexander Best wrote: > personally i think maintaining backwards compatibility to adX is unnecessary. > the adaY names will appear in 9.0. anybody upgrading to a major new release > should expect to adjust certain config files and it's not really a big deal. The problem is that this is not a realistic point of view. When there are very good reasons to make changes like this we do it, but there has to be a *really* good reason. Something like this which is going to cause systems to fail when users reboot them better have an overwhelmingly good reason. And yes, I get that from a developer perspective we expect users to read documentation, they should know what they are doing before they do it, blah blah blah. Like I said, this is NOT a reasonable perspective, and screwing the users over in this way is going to do nothing but damage FreeBSD's reputation. Need I remind everyone on this list of the problems that have resulted from removing support for "dangerously dedicated" disks? Now imagine that 100 times over. So, my question stands. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4DB70F13.6060002>