On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:05 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... > Because they still have the support staff for when users don't listen, Fedora doesn't. Thanks, Josef -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
