Syslinux - Jul 2015 - [PULL 0/8] MultiFS suppport for BIOS and EFI

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:15 PM, Ady via Syslinux <syslinux at zytor.com>
wrote:
>
> > The MultiFS syntax is basically "(hdX,Y)/path/to/file",
where X is disk
> > number and Y is partition number.
> >
>
> Thank you.
>
> As a reminder, please note:
>
> _ There was a syntax discussion about "multifs", so additional
syntax
> forms should be allowed too (please read the whole email thread):
>  http://www.syslinux.org/archives/2014-June/022173.html
>   Examples:
> __ Space or comma should be valid alternatives (as chain.c32);
> __ Not only numbering, but also labels, uuid's and other forms of
> identification should be allowed / supported too (as chain.c32).
>
My sincere opinion is to apply this patchset as-is, and incrementally
improve multifs. Lack of alternatives (additional features) *should not* be
a reason to block this patchset. Again, I really think that this patchset
should be applied unless a technical reason, e.g. some deficiency
introduced by one of the patches, says otherwise. HPA, what do you think?
>
> _ And _please_ I beg you all to use the simple term "multifs",
without
> unnecessary "fanciness":
>  http://www.syslinux.org/archives/2014-July/022493.html
>
> TIA,
> Ady.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Syslinux mailing list
> Submissions to Syslinux at zytor.com
> Unsubscribe or set options at:
> http://www.zytor.com/mailman/listinfo/syslinux
>


-- 
Raphael S. Carvalho

On 07/23/2015 02:09 PM, Raphael S Carvalho via Syslinux
wrote:
>>
> My sincere opinion is to apply this patchset as-is, and incrementally
> improve multifs. Lack of alternatives (additional features) *should not* be
> a reason to block this patchset. Again, I really think that this patchset
> should be applied unless a technical reason, e.g. some deficiency
> introduced by one of the patches, says otherwise. HPA, what do you think?
> 
Step 1 is to commit it on a branch.

	-hpa

> On 07/23/2015 02:09 PM, Raphael S Carvalho via Syslinux wrote:
> >>
> > My sincere opinion is to apply this patchset as-is, and incrementally
> > improve multifs. Lack of alternatives (additional features) *should
not* be
> > a reason to block this patchset. Again, I really think that this
patchset
> > should be applied unless a technical reason, e.g. some deficiency
> > introduced by one of the patches, says otherwise. HPA, what do you
think?
> > 
> 
> Step 1 is to commit it on a branch.
> 
> 	-hpa
> 
 
Without _a lot_ of testing, applying the patch "as-is" is not the best
first step, IMHO. A separated branch sounds at least more reasonable in 
comparison.

Additionally, the patch set seems to affect more-than-just-an-isolated 
file / feature, which means that incorporating other patches (still 
pending, or future ones) based on the current stable 6.03 would be more 
difficult, generally speaking.

One important matter to consider is the syntax (i.e. users). A future 
discussion / email would sound something as "we already introduced a 
certain syntax for 'hd' and 'partitions', so now we are having
troubles
with supporting additional nomenclatures". Examples are: using space 
character(s) as alternative to the suggested comma (as chain.c32), or 
using labels and/or UUIDs (as chain.c32). Once a certain syntax is 
established for final users, improvements are more difficult if they 
are not considered in advance.

I understand the desire of adding the multifs feature. I fear that 
(other) pending issues / regressions will be kept alive "forever".

BTW, having a branch with this patch set "as-is" would mean
propagating
(even more) the unnecessary "fancy" forms of the term, instead of
plain
"multifs". Please, please, KISS, "multifs".

Regards,
Ady.
 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Syslinux mailing list
> Submissions to Syslinux at zytor.com
> Unsubscribe or set options at:
> http://www.zytor.com/mailman/listinfo/syslinux
>

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 3:56 PM, H. Peter Anvin via Syslinux
<syslinux at zytor.com> wrote:
> On 07/23/2015 02:09 PM, Raphael S Carvalho via Syslinux wrote:
>>>
>> My sincere opinion is to apply this patchset as-is, and incrementally
>> improve multifs. Lack of alternatives (additional features) *should
not* be
>> a reason to block this patchset. Again, I really think that this
patchset
>> should be applied unless a technical reason, e.g. some deficiency
>> introduced by one of the patches, says otherwise. HPA, what do you
think?
>>
>
> Step 1 is to commit it on a branch.
I've actually been thinking about multifs since at least May and
perhaps March.  I think its change-set is enough that it warrants a
release unto itself.  When we're ready for 6.04, release 6.04, merge
mutlifs, release 6.10, and probably update gnu-efi and release 6.11.
Both of these change enough that they may have large impacts and
warrant separation.

I think HPA does have the right idea.  Make a multifs branch to give
it more traction and exposure.

-- 
-Gene