[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 8/27/19 2:00 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 11:25 AM David Cantrell <dcantrell redhat com> wrote:
>>
>> The installer team rejecting btrfs patches is going to be based on their
>> resources to support the functionality.  I would say "btrfs in Fedora"
>> needs a FESCo decision to set expectations and policy for the project.
>> Is it something that Fedora wants to offer and if so, what does that
>> look like?
> 
> FESCo already voted 8 years ago to make Btrfs the default file system,
> and then allowed that to wither and become moot rather than revert the
> decision. Then later when the editions were created, part of
> Fedora.next, the decision of default file systems was handed to the
> working groups to decide. And the Fedora kernel team has also said
> this is a working group decision.
> 
> The Fedora working group's technical specification states Btrfs is to
> be the default. Yet the working group has said it's uncomfortable
> taking action on this decision expressly because the Federal kernel
> team's official recommendation is to not recommend Btrfs. And I agree.
> I trust the Fedora kernel team as they've clearly stated limited
> resources and interest in Btrfs, the expectations and parameters for
> properly supporting Btrfs either as bug blocker worthy, and as a
> default file system from a user advocacy point of view.

OK, so 8 years has gone by and the landscape around btrfs looks
different in Fedora.  Given the kernel team's position, is it worth
still having the FESCo decision and kernel team's recommendation at odds?

>> If it's a best effort thing, then that makes it easier for
>> projects and contributors.  Going back to Adam's original list, I would
>> suggest a FESCo decision like this should require explicit opt-in by the
>> user to enable btrfs functionality in the application in question.  For
>> example, in the installer that could be enabled via a boot parameter (we
>> did this initially when btrfs functionality was first enabled in anaconda).
> 
> That can only be considered to be a remarkable regression, not just in
> the context of Fedora, but in the context of the top 10 linux
> distributions all of which have visible Btrfs support in their GUI
> installers. Fedora's installer being the first to make Btrfs invisible
> by default would be a remarkable first indeed.

I'm merely offering an example scenario.

This does illustrate a problem with expectations among users.  It's
visible now, but not a priority, which leads to frustration.

>> I'm not advocating one way or another for btrfs.  But it seems we as a
>> project need a larger decision and policy around btrfs in general so we
>> can set expectations for users and developers.
> 
> That decision and policy has already been made. Do you want it reverted?

I guess I meant to say "FESCo needs to revisit this decision for a
potential change".

Thanks,

-- 
David Cantrell <dcantrell redhat com>
Red Hat, Inc. | Boston, MA | EST5EDT


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