On Fri, 2014-05-30 at 09:07 -0400, Anne Mulhern wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vratislav Podzimek" <vpodzime(a)redhat.com>
> To: "anaconda patch review"
<anaconda-patches(a)lists.fedorahosted.org>
> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 3:14:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [blivet:master 05/26] No longer use _standard_levels as the default set
of RAID levels.
>
> On Thu, 2014-05-29 at 14:47 -0400, mulhern wrote:
> > The notion of a "standard" RAID level is being eroded too rapidly to
make
> > it
> > really useful. ALL_LEVELS is a better notion.
> > This change has the added benefit of simplifying the RAIDlevels
> > constructor.
> > Also, make _raid_levels property a set instead of a list since no real
> > ordering make sense.
> I believe the ordering makes sense -- users would be quite confused if
> we offered them to choose from the following RAID levels:
> 1. RAID 4
> 2. RAID 0
> 3. RAID 5
> 4. RAID 10
> ...
>
> Maybe the RAID levels don't have to be ordered internally, but when
> queried, they should be returned as a list from the lowest number to the
> biggest one. Anaconda does the ordering by its Glade files, but that
> doesn't have to be the case of other tools using blivet.
Where do Linear, Single, Container, RAID01, Dup, etc. fit in your ordering?
I'ld rather have clients decide what is best for them then impose an ordering
that will surely be wrong for some.
Ah, that makes sense. I forgot to take these
into account. Using set is
okay then.
--
Vratislav Podzimek
Anaconda Rider | Red Hat, Inc. | Brno - Czech Republic