|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Message-ID: <Ethv=_Zz0001Rhno9F@mit.edu> Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 15:22:50 +0000 () From: Bill Cattey <wdc@MIT.EDU> To: Garry Zacheiss <zacheiss@MIT.EDU> CC: release-team@MIT.EDU, larugsi@MIT.EDU In-Reply-To: <200009070557.BAA02638@riff-raff-w20.mit.edu> For clarification's sake: I agree that it does not take a great deal of developer effort to add another geometry to the hard-coded tables. This point was raised by Miki the very first time I opened the discussion. But I am not exaggerating the CALENDAR time that has been measured to elapse between a problem with an install, and the day at which the new partition table entry comes online. Garry: What you didn't hear about was the phone call I took from Abby wondering what to do about Tom Cavin's situation while Miki was away, and you were inaccessible. The reason why you COULD take only half an hour to set up the new partition table for Lou last night was that he took special effort to remind members of his team that the symptom they were getting WAS, in fact, due to a missing partition table entry, and then that I had to spend a little time last night re-assuring him that his action was, indeed correct and that he should go look for you as the person available after hours to remedy the problem. So once the problem gets properly diagnosed and dispatched to either Miki or Garry, it only takes half an hour, but I got to spend half an hour before both of you on both most recent occasions. Others spent a half an hour each time getting it to me too. One could argue that if end users, and service personnel were fully clued-in we'd not need to worry about this. My take on this situation is that it's MUCH easier to fix the install than to try and enlighten all the other parties involved. -wdc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |