The developers say that it isn't ready. In my opinion default status means that all features are at least deemed usable. It would be extremely confusing to tell the community BTRFS is the default but it is not safe to use certain features. I want it to be ready too... but the fact remains it is not.
On Oct 7, 2014 3:05 PM, "Matthias Clasen" <mclasen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 13:24 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Gerald B. Cox <gbcox@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > Thanks James... I am aware of all the warnings. They might as well put up a
> > skull & crossbones. I have all my data backed up twice. But this is my
> > point... you don't say toxic and then simultaneously talk about proposing it
> > as the default file system on Fedora.
>
> Right... no single person is saying both things. We don't have
> split-personality disorder here. Someone started discussing it as
> default, and a bunch of other people chimed in that it wasn't ready.
> Until those concerns are dealt with, it's not really even a candidate
> for default consideration.
I think the point is somewhat valid though. To just keep repeating the
mantra 'its not ready' is not going to make it any more ready. If suse
can identify a stable subset of btrfs features and use it as their
default file system with those restrictions, why can't we do the same ?
The approach makes sense to me, at least...
Are the suse and fedora kernels that different that there is no synergy
to be had here ?
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
