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

Fake RAID (dmraid) support - review of templates



I have now finished the last changes I wanted to make before uploading the 
fake RAID support that was implemented during DebConf.

I would appreciate it if some people would review the new templates 
created for this:
- one internal template in hw-detect (no review needed)
- two templates in partman-base:
  partman/text/dmraid_volume, partman/text/dmraid_part
- all templates in partman-dmraid
- two templates in grub-installer:
  grub-installer/fakeraid, grub-installer/fakeraid-error


The main question is probably how we should refer to these devices.
Currently they will be displayed as follows on the main screen:
  Fake (ata) RAID <device name> (mirror) - 40.0 GB Linux device-mapper
  >      #1 primary   10.0 GB B   fat32
  >      #2 primary   29.0 GB     ext2
  >      #3 primary  995.3 MB     ext2
  Fake (ata) RAID <device name> (partition #1) - 10.0 GB Linux device
  >      #1  10.0 GB     fat32
  Fake (ata) RAID <device name> (partition #2) - 29.0 GB Linux device
  >      #1  29.0 GB     ext3       /
  Fake (ata) RAID <device name> (partition #3) - 995.3 MB Linux device
  >      #1 995.3 MB     swap       swap

Is "Fake (ata) RAID" a good description, or should we use something else. 
On Google, "fake raid" gets 14,400 hits and fakeraid even more (40,500), 
so it's a fairly widely accepted term. (Intel seems to call it "Serial 
ATA RAID" and "Matrix storage".)

Alternatives could be:
- Fake (ATA) RAID
- Fake RAID (or maybe fakeraid, FakeRaid, FakeRAID)
- Serial ATA RAID
- Fake (SATA) RAID
- ATA RAID
- ...


Note that the templates in existing components are currently not marked as
"translatable"; the ones in partman-dmraid are, but these are not yet 
merged into the master file.
Should we enable translation for templates while it is still experimental 
(after the review)? Or maybe just for those in partman-base?

Cheers,
FJP

Attachment: pgptu2cNpXSg3.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: