Bug#239111: Grub is shockingly bad code

[Steve McIntyre]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:00:58PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:16:03PM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Yes, I've looked at the grub2 source and I'm much happier. It doesn't
>> look like a novice had written it, which is a major improvement. I'm
>> still curious WTH anybody would think the nested functions are a good
>> thing, though...
>
>It's kind of a tradition here.  I think the point is just to limit the
>scope of "hook functions" same way as is usually done for variables.

:-/ As an experienced C programmer, they make me shudder. For simple
readability of the code, I'd give up on them altogether. But it's your
code... 

>> The thing I'm more bothered about right now is what will happen to
>> people with existing systems who upgrade. That's why Rob raised this
>> bug to grave: his remote system locked up as part of an upgrade. What
>> do you plan to do to stop this happening again?
>
>The whole approach is wrong, so maybe it makes sense to avoid it, or maybe
>it's too late for that, and we should issue a critical debconf warning when
>XFS is detected.
>
>I will have to think about it.

OK; please be quick, as we could really do with something in place for
Lenny and we're not far away.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve at einval.com
You lock the door
And throw away the key
There's someone in my head but it's not me