[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 Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 7:49 AM Samantha Bueno <sbueno redhat com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 9:17 PM Adam Williamson
> <adamwill fedoraproject org> wrote:

> > So...what should we do? Here are the options as I see 'em:
> >
> > 1. Keep supporting btrfs
> > 2. Just modify the criterion with a btrfs exception, even if it's weird
> > 3. Rewrite the criterion entirely
> > 4. Keep btrfs support in the installer (and blivet-gui) but hide it as
> > we used to - require a special boot argument for it to be visible
> > 5. Drop btrfs support from the installer

> This thread has diverged wildly into a lot of delightful
> invective-slinging at my team. In the interest of getting back to the
> original topic at hand: I would be in support of three -- five.

This clearly means Btrfs related bugs in Fedora's Anaconda will not
block release, and by extension Btrfs could not be the default file
system either.

"Btrfs is not a priority" does not at all answer the central question
of what level of support and resources are expected to exist in the
Fedora community to maintain Btrfs in both the bug blocking, and
default file system contexts. I think Laura Abbott's emails on the
kernel side are quite clear ground rules for serious Btrfs bugs to
remain blocker worthy, along with a path to discuss any additional
expectations for Btrfs to be a default file system in some capacity.

Unqualified statements like "it is safe to say btrfs will not be the
default" and "Btrfs is not a priority" and this 'zero chance Btrfs'
comment [1] are completely compatible with assuming that no matter how
much work is done by others, those things will not appear in Anaconda
because the decision has been made, it is a fait accompli.

It is very important to have clarity exactly to what degree Btrfs is
not a priority. If the Anaconda team cannot state the terms and
expectations for the #1 option in Adam's list, that's troubling.
Again, I think it's completely fine if Red Hat Anaconda folks are
disinterested in Btrfs, but it's a very different thing if there's
resistance to it, and I'm getting a lot of language that is compatible
with resisting Btrfs no matter what.


[1]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1717728#c10


-- 
Chris Murphy


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