On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Doug Barton wrote: > On 09/26/2011 15:38, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: >> This perception that ZFS is most of the future probably contributed to >> the lack of strong opinions regarding the default UFS partition scheme. > > Can we please stop saying that there were no contrary opinions stated? I My apologies; my statements refer only to the filesystems working group of the BSDCan devsummit. I seem to recall that you couldn't make it to BSDCan ... > personally expressed a preference (call it strong if that helps) for > split partition scheme, as did several other people, all with worked > examples. Nathan chose to go "one big partition" in spite of that input. > Given that he was the one doing the work on the installer I personally > decided to take a step back and see how it played out. But let's not > pretend that this wasn't Nathan's decision. > > Meanwhile, if based on feedback from early adopters we need to tweak the > layout, that's not life threatening. There is still time. Yes, it was clearly Nathan's decision. And there is still time. -Ben KadukReceived on Mon Sep 26 2011 - 20:49:42 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:18 UTC