[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Discussion: what would not blocking on btrfs look like?



On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 5:16 AM <jkonecny redhat com> wrote:

> I understand them. The point is, for them and even us (the installer)
> is work on BTRFS not a priority. It's something we can't benefit on
> RHEL and it could be almost completely replaced by LVM + xfs solution.
> However, it still giving us bugs and making our test surface bigger.
>
> >From the Anaconda team PoV it would make our lives easier to not
> support BTRFS at all. I'm not saying that we should drop BTRFS in
> Fedora, only that it would be easier for Anaconda team to be without
> that on Fedora.

It would also be easier if Custom and Advanced partitioning UIs were
dropped entirely.

Most Linux distros now support Btrfs. All the top 10 do. One,
currently ranked #7 Solus, supports it via a point and shoot
installer, deferring to Gparted to actually set it up. All the others
have a custom interface that supports Btrfs directly.

Meanwhile, #23 Parrot uses Btrfs by default for home and root. And so
does openSUSE for a while now.

And the idea being floated, is that Fedora shouldn't have a sense of
adventure, but to maybe drop Btrfs from the installer. Fedora would be
the first, if it did.

It is completely reasonable for Red Hat to have maintainability
concerns about Btrfs for RHEL, and it's entirely fair for Red Hat to
have a bias against it. If it were true that Red Hat is, however
unintentionally, injecting its Btrfs bias into Fedora, that would be
troubling.


-- 
Chris Murphy


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]