On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Gaurish Sharma <contact@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05/03/2010 12:40 AM, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote: >> >> >> BTRFS is not marked stable by the developers yet, its dangerous to include >> it in the interest of arch newbies. A disk crash may spoil the impression of >> Arch. >> >> In my opinion, we should wait some more time till the developers of BTRFS >> release a stable version to include it into AIF. >> > +1 > Till Ext4 would fill the gaps i agree it probably should not be visible by default (one suggested option was a flag to AIF, like aif --expert), but the tools (hooks/etc.) need to be developed and stabilized too. there are many users who want to try BTRFS regardless of the risks, and i think we should let them test other integration points along with it. what good is a stable FS if the tools to use it are alpha and buggy for 1 year afterward? that leaves a worse impression than letting advanced users, aware of the risks, use the tools and provide feedback. in my opinion we need to let AIF/etc. integration mature along with the FS itself. this way when BTRFS is marked "stable" the tools will be ready as well and it will be a minor transition. personally, i've been using btrfs for almost a year without issue, and i see much positive feedback from others around the net as well. my main issue is that btrfs is advanced and we have much to think about the way we want to include it. rollback support and friends are very cool (this just saved me the other day actually) and i think would provide a great benefit to the arch rolling model. additionally, ext4 developer (Tso) has been quoted as saying ext4 is little more than a bridge to BTRFS. in my opinion ext4 is of no interest. C Anthony
