On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 16:38 -0500, John.Florian@xxxxxxxx wrote: > > With the best of intentions, we'd gone from a reluctant exception to the > > 'no choice' design to a dropdown which included two very different > > complex choices: LVM and btrfs. So now the installer path which was > > originally supposed to be minimal-choice, very robust and testable and > > fixable, had become rather a lot more complex. > > Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. I don't think that precept applies very well to this area. The problem is that there are - and this is probably *literal*, not a rhetorical flourish - millions of Special Little Use Cases like yours (the one below, snipped for brevity) out there. *You* want it to be easy to skip /home. *She* wants it to be easy to resize a Slackware install. *That guy* wants to use btrfs. *My cat* likes RAID. It is becoming very, very clear that we just cannot undertake to support them all and guarantee that they are all going to work in a release. It's just _too much work_. Everyone agrees that it would be nice if we could, but then everyone agrees that it'd be nice if I had a solid gold toilet. Some nice things just don't happen. We do not have the resources to be in the business of writing the world's biggest disk configuration tool and guaranteeing that it'll never go wrong, which isn't *quite* what we're currently trying to do, but it's not far from it. It's worth trying some other installers out, just to reset your expectations. Have you seen the level of flexibility you get from Ubuntu's interactive installer? Windows'? OS X's? > I > appreciate your QA angle here. Every condition in a code path leads to > exponential growth in testing. And development. This isn't just a QA problem. We do not have the development resources to commit to all this stuff working reliably every six months. > However, when I have my admin hat on, I > want flexibility. I love LVM for that reason. However, if I'm setting up > simple VMs whose backend storage resides in a LV, I have no need or desire > for LVM within the VM. Does it hurt you to get it, though? I do my VM installs with LVs. I don't really need them. But nothing explodes, and two hours later I forget all about it. In the end it's just bits. As long as the bits are where they need to be when things need to read them, who *gives* a monkey's tail? I did recognize that it would be tough sledding to get back to zero choice, and if you ask me to crystal ball it, we might have to wind up back at 'plain partitions or LVM'. But that's still a substantial improvement on where we are right now. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
