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

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

 



On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 13:38 -0400, David Lehman wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-08-23 at 12:16 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Hey folks!
> 
> Hi Adam! Thanks for bringing this up again.
> 
> > 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
> 
> I like option 3 most. The current criteria have always seemed, to me,
> too vague. I'd be happy to help hash out the details if/when it
> happens.

Thanks for the offer.

So aside from the 'fun' of drafting very specific rules, my concern
with #3 is we would then potentially be shipping an installer that
presents things as roughly equal choices which are not in fact equally
supported. You can pick 'btrfs' or 'ext4' from the dropdown...but one
of those we commit to making sure is working, one of them we don't.

That to me is concerning; in this scenario I'd prefer we indicate
somehow, somewhere, that all the choices are not equally guaranteed to
be reliable. WDYT? 
-- 
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



[Index of Archives]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Legacy List]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]
  Powered by Linux