Jail FS questions.

[Marc G. Fournier]

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote:

> > Shooting down ppl that are willing to test and report bugs is equally as
> > irresponsible though, and I've been seeing alot of that ...
>
> Okay, so you're changing the topic (we were talking about users, not
> testers).

No, I'm talking about end-users ... I had a requirement for using unionfs,
so I used it ignoring the WARNING, knowing that I had to watch things ...
as soon as I hit bugs with it, I submit'd a PR for it, and, I suspect as
much to shut me up as anything, there were a few developers that help'd
resolve those issues, and patches got made to CVS to ensure that other
users didn't get hassled with the same issues ...

I run this on four *production* servers, and very visible ones at that, as
I host the *.postgresql.org domains, so whenever the server went down as a
result of the unionfs bugs, *alot* of ppl saw it ...

> You acknowledge that you are aware of the opinion of a lot of the
> developers that many of the bugs in unionfs are systemic and are
> impossible to fix without a rewrite of much of the kernel.

Very much so ... do you acknowledge that there are alot of developers that
are of the opinion that unionfs is 'the worst case scenario' and that the
whole VFS layer itself is problematic and in need of a rewrite?

> There just isn't a lot of value in having GNATS full of reports of
> impossible-to-fix bugs in known-buggy software.  People who report
> such bugs often need to be reminded of the realities: firstly, that
> what they have run into is the documented, expected behaviour; and
> secondly that they should not expect it to be fixed any time soon.
> The appropriate solution is to suspend the PR with a note to this
> effect.

Had I followed the logic, the few major bugs that were causing very
repeatable problems would never have been fixed ... and altho they were
under that same "impossible-to-fix bugs", they have been fixed ...