Subject: Re: Questions about 1.3
To: None <email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: The Grey Wolf <email@example.com>
Date: 10/03/1997 23:50:57
#: From current-users-owner-greywolf=starwolf.com@NetBSD.ORG Fri Oct 3 11:02:03 1997
#: To: "John F. Woods" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
#: cc: email@example.com, Peter Seebach <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
#: Subject: Re: Questions about 1.3
#: Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 08:33:56 -0700
#: From: Ted Lemon <email@example.com>
#: Delivered-To: current-users@NetBSD.ORG
#: Changing the partitioning scheme sounds like a good idea.
#: Implementing slices sounds like a good idea. Arbitrarily changing
#: the partition count sounds like a reasonable way to make a few
#: people's lives easier in the short term before we get around to
#: implementing slices.
And implementing "slices" as opposed to "partitions" would gain us
#: But none of these things sounds reasonable in the context of a code
#: freeze that's three weeks away. This is a change that should be made
#: and given a _lot_ of time to settle out, not just three weeks.
#: Please, let's not make this code freeze an excuse to toss in whatever
#: junk a couple of people might find useful, just because we can't Do
#: The Right Thing in the time available.
Actually, it's not too bad given the schedule outlined some time ago
by ....perry? jtk? someone did...
Anyway, it's not an unreasonable thing to shoot for, considering that
"enhancements" are currently still allowed; if it doesn't work right,
back it out, but I think that expanding the number of partitions
is not a bad idea; apparently der Mouse has some patches to make
this work, at least for the SPARC port.
#: (Aiigh! I am become Nochangenik, Preventer of Implementation!)
"The power to destroy technical excellence with standards is
insignificant next to the power of the source."