On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Jon Masters <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 14:51 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: > >> 2) Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use >> BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default. > > In my personal opinion, this is a poor design decision. Yes, BTRFS can > do a lot of volume-y things, and these are growing by the day, but I > don't want my filesystem replacing a full volume manager and I am > concerned that this will lead to less testing and exposure to full LVM > use within the Fedora community. Instead, I'd like to counter-propose > that everything stay exactly as it is, with users being able to elect to > switch to BTRFS (sub)volumes if they are interested in doing so. > > Should the switch to BTRFS by default happen, this will be one more > thing I will have to fix immediately during installation. The list grows > longer and longer over time - please don't make this change. You seem to spend a lot of time during your installs undoing all the new things that were done for the release. Perhaps a rapid changing, bleeding-edge distribution isn't quite suited to your needs. Maybe you would be more comfortable with Debian or CentOS? josh -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
