On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> >> No, that isn't true. Without wide adoption you may not have any >> impetus for btrfs to get better. However, it getting better is >> dependent upon wider development, maintenance, and testing. I'm not >> sure we are in a position to actually do that, and that is the bulk of >> my hesitation. Throwing something upon Fedora users as a default with >> the hopes that it will improve is pretty horrible in my opinion, >> particularly if we aren't able to actually fix things they find. > > > Does Fedora or more specifically Red Hat have anyone working on Btrfs > upstream that can help guide the path forward? It can't be possibly be the > right decision to let Btrfs be struck in the current position for too long. Fedora is harder to quantify because of the community aspect. I can say that there is nobody on the Fedora Engineering Team (which the Fedora kernel team is a part of) that is working on btrfs upstream. We do have Fedora contributors like Chris Murphy and others who have been doing a lot of testing and bug reporting around btrfs for a while though. I have less insight as to broader Red Hat involvement. Btrfs is a tech preview in the RHEL7 Beta, so some level of participation is to be expected. How much that translates to upstream development is unclear. josh _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
