[syslinux] [PULL 0/8] MultiFS suppport for BIOS and EFI

[Ady]

> On 07/23/2015 02:09 PM, Raphael S Carvalho via Syslinux wrote:
> >>
> > My sincere opinion is to apply this patchset as-is, and incrementally
> > improve multifs. Lack of alternatives (additional features) *should not* be
> > a reason to block this patchset. Again, I really think that this patchset
> > should be applied unless a technical reason, e.g. some deficiency
> > introduced by one of the patches, says otherwise. HPA, what do you think?
> > 
> 
> Step 1 is to commit it on a branch.
> 
> 	-hpa
> 
 
Without _a lot_ of testing, applying the patch "as-is" is not the best 
first step, IMHO. A separated branch sounds at least more reasonable in 
comparison.

Additionally, the patch set seems to affect more-than-just-an-isolated 
file / feature, which means that incorporating other patches (still 
pending, or future ones) based on the current stable 6.03 would be more 
difficult, generally speaking.

One important matter to consider is the syntax (i.e. users). A future 
discussion / email would sound something as "we already introduced a 
certain syntax for 'hd' and 'partitions', so now we are having troubles 
with supporting additional nomenclatures". Examples are: using space 
character(s) as alternative to the suggested comma (as chain.c32), or 
using labels and/or UUIDs (as chain.c32). Once a certain syntax is 
established for final users, improvements are more difficult if they 
are not considered in advance.

I understand the desire of adding the multifs feature. I fear that 
(other) pending issues / regressions will be kept alive "forever".

BTW, having a branch with this patch set "as-is" would mean propagating 
(even more) the unnecessary "fancy" forms of the term, instead of plain 
"multifs". Please, please, KISS, "multifs".

Regards,
Ady.
 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Syslinux mailing list
> Submissions to Syslinux at zytor.com
> Unsubscribe or set options at:
> http://www.zytor.com/mailman/listinfo/syslinux
>