Subject: Re: Progress meter for fsck, revisited
To: Nathan J. Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
Date: 01/13/2004 21:19:13
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 07:25:24PM -0500, Nathan J. Williams wrote:
> Jason Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > 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.
Well, I disagree. I think it's a cool thing to have in the tree, and it=20
can benefit a number of users. Also, it is an option, after all.
And, it can serve as a building block/example for a parallel progress=20
meter implementation in the future.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----