Re: Re: failure to communicate

[<ian_bruce@fastmail.net>]

<odyx@debian.org> a écrit :

> You want that bug fixed? Great: test the patch, document your tests

I did all that.

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=684128#103

> gather feedback, get involved

quoting from the above:

    I would be interested to hear suggestions as to what sort of tests
    of binary mode operation would be considered sufficient for the
    patch to be accepted.

> For a fix to land in Wheezy, this should have happened 8 months ago.

Check the date on the above post.

> disruptive fixes

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=684128#66

quote:

    I take the point that it is not currently feasible to get
    translations of new or changed text for the installer. What I
    propose is to apply this small patch, and make no changes at all to
    any text. When operating in decimal mode, the new code is
    functionally identical to the old, apart from the improvements
    listed above. When operating in binary mode, identical input text
    will simply be interpreted as s*(2^(10*n)) rather than s*(10^(3*n)).

    The choice of whether the partitioner operates in binary or decimal
    mode can be controlled by a boot parameter, so as not to introduce
    any new user-visible text into the installer.

    Now we can all fight about whether the default partitioning mode
    should be binary or decimal. I'm curious to hear why, if just about
    nobody cares about the difference between 2^(10*n) and 10^(3*n), it
    would be unacceptable to default to 2^(10*n), which is what just
    about everybody who does care would expect.