[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [PATCH] DriverDiscs again - fixes according to review



Hi,

> It's not that it'd be hard to implement, it's that the scope of this
> automatic driver disk thing just keeps increasing to involve more and
> more stuff all the time.  We have mechanisms for specifying updates
> images.  What's wrong with using one of those?

Nothing if you ask me. Partners would tell you something different though. It is usually something along the lines of "bad customer experience" and "revenue loss". And you haven't seen the proposals for automatic shell script execution... Or maybe you did..

I have to fight a lot to avoid the features which are useless and avoidable using mechanisms we already have, so I'm getting really tired and annoyed when I have to fight here too. Especially when everybody generally hates the feature... nobody reviews it for two weeks and then all of a sudden, I'm asked to rewrite half of the code...

Talking about libarchive, their documentation is a mess and could use some help too (I wasn't just complaining, I actually looked at it and I like the concept, but I have to figure out the small details first...)

> 
> Further, version and arch checks are something that updates images do
> not have at all right now, meaning we'd either need to add it to all
> (which is a major change of behavior) or just for this one path
> (which
> introduces a pretty gross inconsistency).

I agree, but the feature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]