INFORMAL - For the authors and potential testers; A reasoning why my initial 'bug report' is 'unorthodox' ...

[claudiusraphaelpaeth]

Please let me add a virtual interview here for reasoning and just let it stay here, as it might help @danboid and @johnramsden and not so profound but eagerly interested people to understand, why my 'bug 'report' is the way it is and why this is an experience that can be of help.

–––

Just to add some explanation of the why and how i did it like this (as i'm asked often):
The main reason was, as i stated initially in the 'bug report', to do some necessary overwriting of the there listed drives, so i can do something necessary, that is easy to accomplish, without focusing much.

Why else?
Because asides the coding | structuring | illustrating i have (actually in part: had) to do ( that's what i meant by saying 'real work' ) i needed to do something at least similar ( meaning stay on in the digital way of being creative ), to not disrupt my workflow, when i needed to have a break from the 'real work'.

Okay, but how does that make sense any way?
In my free time [for quite some time now] i am fiddling with all existing ways to learn how to effectively make use of ZFS and BTRFS better and more detailed, so i can conclude what i learned and transform these conclusions into practical and where possible pragmatic variants of usage that effectively lead to fully purposed driving these filesystems cross-platform on (mainly):

– [ OpenIndiana | OmniOS CE | SmartOS | Tribblix || FreeBSD | GhostBSD | TrueOS | NetBSD || Debian | Ubuntu | MX | Ovirt | XenServer | CentOS | Scientific | Fedora | Sugar | Void | Gobo | Bedrock | Manjaro | Antergos | Arch || Android | Replicant | Lineage || Windows NT 5+ | 6+ | Mobile | Phone ].

Isn't it stupid to just test by using, instead of looking at the involved code?
As i stated, mainly for the purpose of 'refreshing' myself while diving deep into the zone of digital creative work; Mind and body do need some breaks inbetween. But also, because when you use alpha | beta stage software there mostly isn't much testing (in terms of many different users and usecases) done, yet.

Okay fine, but why not after testing just present the result from the perspective of the coder | system engineer | etc.?
Because projects like these, where i think they can be of general use even for advanced users, do need some varied testing without going into the internals, independent of how complex or simple they are. Not only hackers do want to use such a software. Where Hackers means as in the classical sense of the word; i am born 77, so a kid of the 80s and the Commodore 64 was the platform where i began, so hacking , meaning punching hundreds to thousands of lines over days before even thinking about saving the work, was needed; but that way is not exactly 'modern' nowadays.

Aha, yeah, whatever … Uh, what was your point?
To offer help in a way that is diverse from the usual perspectives. Although it often hurts people, being confronted with a different perspective can and in most cases is helpful.

–––

Just to make this clear i am not interested to turn anyones work into a philosophical discourse, there are other places to do so, but the potential users that do not know about these places, may stumble over these lines, so as long as there isn't a full README which helps leading users, based on their 'profile', onto the best fitting landing sites, this 'issue' may be of use, to make those understand that are not used to participate in any way.

To get 'correct' reports filed, there has to be a definition of what is 'correct', aight?

Just take this as a thought and encouragement to widen the insight given on the repositorys landing-page.

[claudiusraphaelpaeth]

I am closing this 'issue', as it is INFORMAL.

Thanks for your interest.