On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 5:16 AM <jkonecny@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I understand them. The point is, for them and even us (the installer) > is work on BTRFS not a priority. It's something we can't benefit on > RHEL and it could be almost completely replaced by LVM + xfs solution. > However, it still giving us bugs and making our test surface bigger. > > >From the Anaconda team PoV it would make our lives easier to not > support BTRFS at all. I'm not saying that we should drop BTRFS in > Fedora, only that it would be easier for Anaconda team to be without > that on Fedora. It would also be easier if Custom and Advanced partitioning UIs were dropped entirely. Most Linux distros now support Btrfs. All the top 10 do. One, currently ranked #7 Solus, supports it via a point and shoot installer, deferring to Gparted to actually set it up. All the others have a custom interface that supports Btrfs directly. Meanwhile, #23 Parrot uses Btrfs by default for home and root. And so does openSUSE for a while now. And the idea being floated, is that Fedora shouldn't have a sense of adventure, but to maybe drop Btrfs from the installer. Fedora would be the first, if it did. It is completely reasonable for Red Hat to have maintainability concerns about Btrfs for RHEL, and it's entirely fair for Red Hat to have a bias against it. If it were true that Red Hat is, however unintentionally, injecting its Btrfs bias into Fedora, that would be troubling. -- 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
