2012/5/28 Thomas Goirand wrote:

>> The truth is that tmpfs IS FASTER in some cases. The problem is that
>> *nobody* can notice that on *real* applications.
>
> Serge, I'm on your side of the discussion, but the above is simply
> not truth.

You mean you know some real applications becoming noticeably faster
having /tmp on tmpfs?

> And by the way, that's not the issue. The issue is potential
> breakage, which we want to avoid *at all costs*.

That does not work. I tried that.

When I say "Hey, a lot of software breaks because of your change", I get
the answer "It's not my change in fault, it's the software, go fix it".
This is exactly what I got in that thread, by the way.

But when I say "Hey, your change have broken a lot of software and
brought nothing good", then people start thinking, why should they mess
with fixing a lot of software, if they get nothing in return anyway.
This is what we have with "/tmp on tmpfs" change.

-- 
  Serge


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CAOVenErJhn54esbuqxn6HHARXPJMeDj4WzxCuSf3KXm=n=_...@mail.gmail.com

Reply via email to