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
