From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Nelson Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] mdadm-3.1 has been withdrawn Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 15:43:52 -0600 Message-ID: References: <19187.50708.551325.297625@notabene.brown> <4AF829B2.5090001@redhat.com> <4AF836F8.5040903@panix.com> <4AF8847D.8030303@redhat.com> <20091109212705.GA29754@maude.comedia.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20091109212705.GA29754@maude.comedia.it> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Luca Berra wrote: > On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 04:07:09PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: >> >> overwrite the superblock), I wouldn't make it 1.2 for whole disk >> devices, and in fact it might be wise to refuse to create 1.2 >> superblocks on whole disk devices. =A0Just a thought. > > I am against refusing to do things because users could get confused, > I could agree if this would require a force flag, but not deny > completely. Agree. > I would think 1.1 is a good option for default. Better than 1.0 for > reasons we discussed to boredom, and 1.2 is really only for special > cases. Agree. > i also agree on the default chunk size bump Agree. --=20 Jon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html