[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: To partman or not to partman (was Re: release status)



.. That is indeed the question of the weekend. We need to decide this by
the end of this weekend to have time for last minute fixes on whichever
system we choose.

I feel that we should decide this on a per-architecture basis if
necessary. I do not want to see arches like sparc have to work to
support both partitioners, or one that is not as well suited to that
architecture if their developers would rather just go with partman.

Having looked at partman and hacked on it some, I think it is very close
to being a usable partitioner on i386, and given the known bugs in
cfdisk/partconf, it is probably really just as close as the old
partitioner.

Of course I worried a lot about bugs we'd find as it gets more testing.
I think these bugs are in one of two categories:

1. Bugs in parted. Mose of these would also impact partconf, so I doubt
   there will be many new ones.
2. Bugs in parted and its UI. I know of many of these, but have found
   them easy to fix so far.

Given everything that parted offers, I am willing to take the risk, make
it default now, work on it furiously, and revisit this in 1.5 weeks. If
we made the wrong decision, we can then backpedal to the old
partitioner.

What say you gentlemen?

-- 
see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: