| 1 |
On 11 December 2011 21:42, Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 12/11/2011 01:10 PM, James Broadhead wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> I didn't take this email at face value when I read it earlier, but I |
| 6 |
>> just merged my openrc-0.9.7 config file. |
| 7 |
>> Wow, what a cynical move. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> It's not cynical. If you put a cool-sounding option in there with a comment |
| 11 |
> that says "this will delete all of your documents," some idiot (i.e. me) is |
| 12 |
> probably going to enable it. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Parallel doesn't work correctly, and it shouldn't be enabled unless you're |
| 15 |
> looking for fun ways to break stuff. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
It's worked for me ever since I switched all of my machines to OpenRC |
| 18 |
a year+(?) ago. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
"We broke it, so let's just remove the comments about it" _is_ a |
| 21 |
cynical response. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
>> Perhaps someone could do some performance testing on rc_parallel to |
| 25 |
>> find out if it's worth fighting for as a feature. |
| 26 |
> The directive still exists, it's just been removed from the default rc.conf. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> This prevents people from thinking "well, parallel is better than not |
| 29 |
> parallel, so I'm gonna enable it." I should know, most of my machines still |
| 30 |
> have it enabled and that was the extent of the research I did. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Parallel _is_ better than Not Parallel - at least in general. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I was proposing some concrete testing rather than data-less |
| 35 |
complaining, or allowing it to be brushed under the rug |
Archives