Subject: Re: Progress meter for fsck, revisited
To: Nathan J. Williams <>
From: James Chacon <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 01/13/2004 20:16:07
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 07:25:24PM -0500, Nathan J. Williams wrote:
> Jason Thorpe <> writes:
> > > .. and you're going to hold your breath until you turn blue, I see.
> > 
> > I don't think it's worth over-complicating a cute feature that you
> > have to choose to turn on.  This is not enabled by default.  If you
> > want cute, you have to give up something.  In my particular
> > application, I need the cute, and the trade-off is completely
> > acceptable.  What's the problem?
> It's of sufficently limited value that I don't think it's worth having
> in the tree.

It's *optional*...Don't like it, don't enable the option. The code itself
would be useful at least under the circumstances Jason mentioned and others
who want more can implement if they so feel...

Just because something doesn't have all the options you beleive it should have
is a reason to exclude it.