Hi Sage, On 06/30/2017 06:48 PM, Sage Weil wrote: > Ah, crap. This is what happens when devs don't read their own > documetnation. I recommend against btrfs every time it ever comes > up, the downstream distributions all support only xfs, but yes, it > looks like the docs never got updated... despite the xfs focus being > 5ish years old now. >> I'll submit a PR to clean this up, but Thanks! >> Simply disabling the tests while keeping the code in the >> distribution is setting up users who happen to be using Btrfs for >> failure. > > I don't think we can wait *another* cycle (year) to stop testing > this. > > We can, however, > > - prominently feature this in the luminous release notes, and > > - require the 'enable experimental unrecoverable data corrupting > features = btrfs' in order to use it, so that users are explicitly > opting in to luminous+btrfs territory. > > The only good(ish) news is that we aren't touching FileStore if we > can help it, so it less likely to regress than other things. And > we'll continue testing filestore+btrfs on jewel for some time. > > Is that good enough? Sounds good to me. Along with updating the wording in the documentation this helps to set clear expectations. Thanks! Lenz
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
