On Jun 12, 2013, at 4:24 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 06/12/2013 02:38 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: >>> >> I can kinda see Johann's point, which is that - since most dual boot >> installs will require a resize - if we don't 'support' resize, we're >> really not 'supporting' dual boot installs. He's not wrong. But overall, >> I think it's worthwhile having the criterion to ensure that, as cmurf >> said, we at least make sure we get the bootloader stuff right at release >> time. > > Yeah that was my point. > > If we are going to support dual boot we should do so fully ( freespace/resize/boot loader entries windows/linux linux/windows linux/linux ) > > If we are not or simply cant ( we should be able to at least support dual booting linux/linux ) we should not have it in the criteria ( but still could perform the tests ) In this increasingly hypothetical "file system resizing induced data loss", which as far as I know isn't even happening to anybody, the criterion acts as a "do no harm" policy to prevent such a distribution from being released to the public. It seems rather self evident that a major, respected distribution like Fedora could not possibly entertain the idea of offering NTFS resizing in the installer, with a data loss inducing defect. It doesn't matter if the defect is ntfs-3g, or anaconda, or some weird interaction between cats and photons. If such data loss is reproducible to even a minority of cases, it would be high order sabotage for such a release to be made public. Clearly it's a formality to have a criterion that effectively says "fix it or disable it" in such a case, but clearly those are the basic two resolutions to this hypothetical. So this language being used about what isn't support, yet it's offered just doesn't work for me linguistically at all. It's a contradiction. Chris Murphy -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
