On Tue, 20.05.08 18:00, Callum Lerwick (seg@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > Bugs happen. The manner in which you recover from them is the difference > between getting useful bug reports and getting flamed to hell and back on > every mailing list and blog in existence and making the entire distribution > look bad. Did I miss something? Shall I take that as an insult? The only one who's flaming me here is ... you! Please find some other place to troll, you are way out of line. > This situation seems entirely recoverable to me. Why can't the clients wait > around and simply reconnect to the daemon and continue when it comes back > again? Sure, there would be a temporary glitch. Temporary is good. A > temporary glitch is far preferable to permanent brokenness, like things just > no longer working with no indication of what happened or how to proceed to > fix it. A temporary glitch is ignorable. Yet it is still a glitch, so a user > with time on their hands can make the *choice* to stop and investigate > further. Taking away that choice takes away the user's control. Taking > control away from the user makes the user unhappy. Unhappy users go out on > mailing lists and blogs and endlessly flame you. Aua. I guess you understimate the complexity of something like this. And how error-prone and thus counterproductive for what you want to do a scheme like this would be. Sorry, but this is not going to happen, makes no sense. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc. lennart [at] poettering [dot] net ICQ# 11060553 http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
