On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 2:26 PM Laura Abbott <labbott@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I don't think we need someone to join the team per se. All we need is > someone who we can assign bugs to and have them work through the issues, > whether that's development or working with upstream to test. We have > a fedora-btrfs bug alias and we can add whoever we want on here. > > I'm okay with keeping btrfs alive if there's enough of a community who > is willing to actually fix bugs and work through the issues. We > do this with other parts of the kernel too. Past Fedora kernel team statements officially recommended against Btrfs. I think it would be weird to make Btrfs the default file system, were that still the case. And one way to alleviate that, it sounds like, is if there were a Btrfs developer on the Fedora kernel team in some capacity, even if it is strictly Btrfs bugs. But I'm open to other ideas. And if it's just a case of release criteria violating Btrfs bugs remaining blocker worthy, then I think it can go either way. > I think 3-5 are the best options right now with a focus on having btrfs > be available but not "supported". If we had a group of people who were > willing to actively debug issues like the one Adam reported, I'd be okay > with #1. I'm on the fedora-kernel-btrfs@ since February, and also supposedly get btrfs-progs bug notifications. And I've been on linux-btrfs@ since early days, they know who I am, even though I can't code my way out of a hat. They've always been responsive when I show them bugs I can reproduce. -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
