Subject: Re: Nightmare File Corruptions with 1.6Q - FFS?
To: Kevin Lahey <email@example.com>
From: Sean Davis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/11/2003 20:53:36
On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 06:36:05PM -0700, Kevin Lahey wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 19:44:47 -0400
> Sean Davis <email@example.com> wrote:
> > FFS2 should *NOT* have been put in current until it was made stable, IMHO.
> > 1.6Q right after the FFS2 code went in corrupts files with much enthusiasm,
> > late 1.6Q and 1.6R can't even find init on this machine (i386). What ever
> > happened to developing things on branches and fixing at least most of the
> > bugs before merging? I've been using -current since 1.4ZC, and this is the
> > worst bug I've seen yet.
> Speaking as somebody who just lost 10 days worth of e-mail (nope, not
> backed up), I have to agree that this is the worst I've ever been thwacked
> for running -current. OTOH, I'm glad that it went in. It seems like
> whenever something goes into a branch it languishes forever. It is far
> better to get it up into -current and start banging on it.
The files I lost were mostly e-mail and other things I never determined the
type of, because 'out of space in lost+found' (which was BS, there is plenty
of space on that filesystem, and running fsck in interactive mode for
thousands of f*cked up files isn't an option just so i can say yes to
> After all, I saw the warning that it was going in, and I decided to
> upgrade anyway. It *is* -current. Now, if the bugs don't get fixed,
> I'll agree with you, but I see a stream of bugfixes going in.
I upgrade on a regular basis, but I really think that Frank should have
tested this a lot more before putting it in current, if branching wasn't an
option. As far as I know, a current kernel is still unbootable on this box,
and I'm not sure I dare try to boot one, after the results of the last
/~\ The ASCII
\ / Ribbon Campaign Sean Davis
X Against HTML aka dive
/ \ Email!