On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:44 PM Justin Forbes <jmforbes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > All of this, the criteria, and the UI support for btrfs are from the > many years old proposal to make btrfs the default filesystem. In the > beginning, it was not ready, but did show promise. This proposal came > up for several releases in a row, and at the end of it, even the > upstream developers recommended against it. Josef Bacik alone pushed for it. And it was Fedora that wasn't ready for Btrfs, not the other way around. In Josef's last couple emails to devel@ he stated the decision would need to be made by others, not him. He pretty much gave up once SUSE got there first. I'm not aware of any upstream developers recommending Fedora not use it. A significant chunk of upstream are at SUSE and by this time had moved to Btrfs by default, so it'd be a little weird if they're recommending against the thing. > At this point, it is safe > to say that btrfs will not be the default. Since that time, things > have not gotten better. This is ambiguous. One possible way to read this is: no matter what resources are put into supporting it in Fedora, it's safe to say it won't be the default. Another possibility: the support resources necessary haven't materialized, therefore it won't be the default. I would like to better understand why it is "safe to say" it won't be the default. > > Yes, there is active btrfs development > upstream. It is fairly narrowly focused, and not something we can > rely upon for a supported default among the Fedora use cases. The thread is ostensibly about whether it's appropriate to block release on Btrfs related bugs, not whether it should be the default file system. But as it's been brought up, I'd like to know if there's any difference in the expected support resources between it remaining "blocker worthy" versus becoming "a default file system" somewhere in the Fedora ecosystem in a release blocking capacity (i.e. presumably a Fedora Spin could choose to make Btrfs its default file system, but that wouldn't be release blocking). > While > Fedora does enable it in the kernel, and plans to continue doing so, > it is enabled in the "if you break it, you get to keep the pieces" > method of many other options. Sure, we will be happy to bring in a > patch that is headed upstream if it fixes a bug, and someone points us > to it. No, we aren't going to spend time debugging issues with it > ourselves. There is no shortage of issues in more "core" kernel > pieces that require attention. That's understandable and reasonable. I don't think anyone uninterested in supporting Btrfs should be made to feel like they ought to. Life is short, do what you're interested in doing, no more. -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list -- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
