On 12/22/14 8:16 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Gerald B. Cox <gbcox@xxxxxx> wrote: >> Yes, I looked at that bug report and the somewhat terse response. I thought >> I'd post here first before I went the bugzilla route. >> >> Based upon the information I discovered tonight it seems a bit puzzling it >> isn't included. Seriously, Ubuntu includes it and we don't? >> Google is using it for the Nexus 9? The "experimental" rationale just >> doesn't hold weight - especially since we are allowing for >> BTRFS Raid5/6; which is made out to be toxic. If it's good enough for >> Google and ahem: "Ubuntu" - it's beyond ridiculous we don't have it. > > So you looked at a bug that is a year and a half old, around the time > when F2FS was very new and under a lot of work, and assumed that > nothing could have possibly changed? Maybe instead of getting angry > and incredulous, you could actually leave a comment in the bug or open > a new RFE bug to have it enabled. If you do, highlighting your > findings without the snarky and aggressive tone would probably help > your case. > > josh FWIW, I see that f2fs-tools is in fedora, but it's a bit old, at v1.2.0 while upstream is at 1.4.0. (http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/jaegeuk/f2fs-tools.git) If you're agitating for movement in the kernel, might want to give the userspace pkg maintainer ( echevemaster ) a heads up, too. -Eric -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
