On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Domas Mituzas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > > Shouldn't the installer complain if it has to use a different > > storage engine > > from the one selected? > > Lots of people would get complaints then. Lots of hosting providers > don't have InnoDB enabled (for various strange reasons). Isn't that how it should be? If you select InnoDB at the installation screen (granted that it is the default) and it's not available, the installer should at least mention that it had to use MyISAM instead; it already blabs about what it's doing at each step and says plenty of things that could make people think something is wrong (diff3 not detected, ImageMagick not detected, etc.), so I don't think this would usher in a new raft of confused users. Then again, maybe we should dodge the issue by only showing the storage engines that are available (we already do this for the object caching options, don't we?). _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
