Re: Time to deprecate old RAID formats?

[Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>]

Neil Brown wrote:
> On Friday October 26, davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
>   
>> Perhaps you could have called them 1.start, 1.end, and 1.4k in the 
>> beginning? Isn't hindsight wonderful?
>>
>>     
>
> Those names seem good to me.  I wonder if it is safe to generate them
> in "-Eb" output....
>
>   
If you agree that they are better, using them in the obvious places 
would be better now than later. Are you going to put them in the 
metadata options as well? Let me know, I have looking at the 
documentation on my list for next week, and could include some text.
> Maybe the key confusion here is between "version" numbers and
> "revision" numbers.
> When you have multiple versions, there is no implicit assumption that
> one is better than another. "Here is my version of what happened, now
> let's hear yours".
> When you have multiple revisions, you do assume ongoing improvement.
>
> v1.0  v1.1 and v1.2 are different version of the v1 superblock, which
> itself is a revision of the v0...
>   

Like kernel releases, people assume that the first number means *big* 
changes, the second incremental change.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO TMR Associates, Inc
  Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979