13.0-CURRENT r356767 wanted ZFS

[Yuri Pankov]

David Wolfskill wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:18:41AM +0000, Clay Daniels wrote:
>> 13.0-CURRENT r356767 would not take NO for an answer, and kept up a loop
>> until I gave up trying to use UFS. No big deal, seems to work fine...
>>
>> Clay
>> ....
> 
> Err...?  Is there some additional context that I'm missing?
> 
> I've been tracking head daily for ... longer than I really want to
> think about, including on at least one system that has no ZFS file
> systems; the last couple of smoke-tests were at:
> 
> FreeBSD g1-53.catwhisker.org 13.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 13.0-CURRENT #7 r356758M/356758: Wed Jan 15 03:49:49 PST 2020     root at g1-53.catwhisker.org:/common/S4/obj/usr/src/amd64.amd64/sys/CANARY  amd64 1300076 1300076
> 
> and
> 
> FreeBSD g1-53.catwhisker.org 13.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 13.0-CURRENT #8 r356786M/356787: Thu Jan 16 03:56:45 PST 2020     root at g1-53.catwhisker.org:/common/S4/obj/usr/src/amd64.amd64/sys/CANARY  amd64 1300076 1300076
> 
> It is not clear to me at what point anything might have a chance
> to indicate that it "wanted ZFS" and request an action.

Likely it's about the latest 13.0-CURRENT snapshot image (r356767) and 
the change to bsdinstall to make ZFS default partitioning scheme, now 
discussed on arch at .