On 03/03/2014 03:43 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 03/03/2014 08:32 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Mar 3, 2014 7:34 AM, "Stephen Gallagher" <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 03/01/2014 06:38 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mar 1, 2014, at 3:58 PM, Reindl Harald
<h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
wrote:
Am 01.03.2014 22:55, schrieb poma:
On 27.02.2014 01:33, Josef Bacik wrote:
Just popping in here to say that btrfs is not ready to
be default in Fedora yet. Optional is fine but not
default. Thanks,
This is actually a good news. Thanks.
Now all we need is fair support in the installer. BTRFS as
alternative scheme: +1 "F-Server" +1 "F-Workstation"
one of the BTRFS maintainers explains is is *not* ready and
you start "we need" in context of BTRFS? strange logic
Josef said it's not ready to be default. Poma suggested making
it available as an alternate to whatever the default is, which
is consistent with how Fedora has been for three releases. His
suggestion is still fewer permutations than the partition
scheme outcomes in Fedora 20; and is about the same or on par
with Fedora 18/19, but still one more than oldui.
One of the things that we have been seriously discussing here is
that non-default options (particularly those known not to be
"ready") do not need or deserve to be presented with the same
prominence as other options.
In my opinion, only the default layout should be provided
prominently. Other choices (such as btrfs) should be available as
part of the "custom" layout options. Users should be permitted to
install it (and without annoying hoops), but they are not
entitled to us developing a "best effort default of a technology
we aren't sure they should be using", which is essentially what
the "btrfs" drop-down in Fedora 20 meant.
I'm not saying it isn't ready at all, just not the default. I and
others still need a way to install on to btrfs if they need to,
and frankly it is good enough for most people to use. I hope we
aren't talking about taking that option away completely right?
Thanks,
I said they should be permitted to install it (and without annoying
hoops).
However, it's a *bad* user experience to have a guided path option for
a feature we aren't ready to promote as the "preferred" approach.
Particularly because QA testing has to occur on all guided paths.
Also, let's be clear here: using the guided path in the UI of a Fedora
Server install *will* be the exceptional case. I fully expect that
most deployments will occur with either a kickstart or a manual
partitioning effort.
The only real purpose to a default, guided path in the Fedora Server
UI is to provide A) the common setup we know people use so that QA is
focusing its testing in the right direction and B) so that newcomers
have something stable to try it out.
So if you were asking me "Are we removing btrfs from the install
options completely?", the answer is a resounding "NO". However, if
you're asking "Are we removing btrfs from the drop-down of
simple-install layouts?", my personal recommendation is "yes".
I disagree - why would we remove the drop down option?
That would make it exceedingly hard and rare for casual users to install and
test. Basically, our Fedora btrfs user base would drop to nothing.
Making it easy to test is a critical part of taking btrfs up to the next level
of stability!
Ric
This is not a slight against btrfs; if you read the rest of my emails,
I'm proposing to do away with this drop-down entirely, including the
ext4 and non-LVM approaches so that we really only have "The default
way" and "create your own destiny" choices.
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
