Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:49:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Experiences with FreeBSD 9.0-BETA2 Message-ID: <alpine.GSO.1.10.1109261848350.882@multics.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <4E8100F9.8050509@FreeBSD.org> References: <201109260053.SAA25795@lariat.net> <201109260927.02540.jhb@freebsd.org> <alpine.GSO.1.10.1109261359100.882@multics.mit.edu> <201109262035.OAA17199@lariat.net> <alpine.GSO.1.10.1109261837340.882@multics.mit.edu> <4E8100F9.8050509@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Doug Barton wrote: > On 09/26/2011 15:38, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: >> This perception that ZFS is most of the future probably contributed to >> the lack of strong opinions regarding the default UFS partition scheme. > > Can we please stop saying that there were no contrary opinions stated? I My apologies; my statements refer only to the filesystems working group of the BSDCan devsummit. I seem to recall that you couldn't make it to BSDCan ... > personally expressed a preference (call it strong if that helps) for > split partition scheme, as did several other people, all with worked > examples. Nathan chose to go "one big partition" in spite of that input. > Given that he was the one doing the work on the installer I personally > decided to take a step back and see how it played out. But let's not > pretend that this wasn't Nathan's decision. > > Meanwhile, if based on feedback from early adopters we need to tweak the > layout, that's not life threatening. There is still time. Yes, it was clearly Nathan's decision. And there is still time. -Ben Kaduk
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.GSO.1.10.1109261848350.882>