On 07/09/2012 05:25 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> And it's a lot more expensive.
>
> I prefect expense over corrupted filesystems or other equally not nice
> situations.
I prefer a well written program that doesn't require expensive bodges to
keep my data safe. What's your point?
>> Just because there is an expensive workaround doesn't mean it's not
>> a bug. And arguably even with hardware fixup it's still a bug and
>> appallingly bad practice.
>
> I don't disagree but then the Fedora ARM SIG is not about development
> and changes of e2fsprogs and if that is what you're wishing to discuss
> here the discussion should likely be taken to the upstream e2fsprogs
> list.
Maybe, but is that really how upstreaming works? I'm a Fedora user,
therefore I'm reporting a bug to Fedora. Is it not from there the
responsibility of the distro package maintainer to see to it that the
fix is pursued upstream?
>> Let's not sweep this under the carpet, especially in something as
>> critical as e2fsprogs.
>
> I'm not sure where you get the idea it's being swept under the carpet?
Saying there is a bodge available to make it safe sounded a bit like it.
> There's a means of mitigation of the problem that is available already
> in the standard Fedora ARM kernels and has been for some time, and
> most of the rest of the discussion should be happening in the
> locations where it's better dealt with.
And to think the output of this level of commitment to doing something
right then goes on to become part of a supposedly enterprise grade
distribution at some point...
Having said that, since I don't deem that good enough for my own distro,
I guess by the "eat my own dogfood" approach, I'll go and pursue it
up-up-stream.
Gordan
_______________________________________________
arm mailing list
arm@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
