>> > On 28/04/18 14:55, Peter Robinson wrote: >> >> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Daniel Walsh <dwalsh@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> wrote: >> >>> We are adding some features to container projects for User Namespace >> >>> support >> >>> that can take advantage of XFS Reflink. I have talked to some of the >> >>> XFS >> >>> Reflink kernel engineers in Red Hat and they have informed me that >> >>> they >> >>> believe it is ready to be turned on by default. >> >>> >> >>> I am not sure who in Red Hat I should talk to about this? Whether we >> >>> should >> >>> turn it on in the installer or in the mkfs.xfs command? >> >>> >> >>> Who should I be talking to? To make this happen. >> >> I would speak to Eric Sandeen I believe he's the Red Hat maintainer >> >> (or one of them) of XFS. >> >> >> >> Peter >> > Indeed, and also we should look at this in the context of what is done >> > for upstream. Ideally Fedora would just inherit the changes there, and there >> > should not be anything special required for Fedora, >> > >> > Steve. >> >> So, for context, I am the upstream maintainer of xfsprogs as well as for >> Fedora xfsprogs. >> >> Historically, new features in XFS have gone from "Experimental" (i.e. >> under >> development), then dropped Experimental (development is ~done) but still >> optional, >> and eventually default. We do this very conservatively, to give bugs a >> chance >> to shake out, which is one of the reasons XFS has a good reputation for >> /not/ >> eating your data. >> >> Reflink on XFS only recently dropped "Experimental" and is not yet default >> upstream; >> it won't be default upstream for some time to come - think on the order of >> months. >> >> However, we do want to give reflink more exposure, and so jumping the gun >> a bit and >> turning it on for rawhide / Fedora 29 is probably a good idea. >> >> I'm mostly ok with patching it on by default in mkfs.xfs; it does confuse >> things a bit >> when "our" version behaves fundamentally differently from upstream, but >> it's probably >> the right thing to do here. I'll make sure that none of the other xfs >> developers have >> strong objections, and if not, I'll patch it in for fedora 29. >> >> Unless this should be a full blown Feature? If so, I'm ok with following >> that path >> as well. > > > > XFS is the default filesystem on Fedora Server Edition, so yes: I think we > should really have a System-Wide Change Proposal submitted for this, > primarily to ensure that the information is spread widely (Change Proposals > like this are picked up by Fedora Marketing and tech news, so it’ll be more > widely dispersed than just on the fedora-devel list). Assuming that the plan is to leave it enabled in F-29 on branching and have it ship enabled in F-29 I agree, if the intention is to leave it enabled in rawhide and disable it on branching then the Change Proposal mechanism isn't the way to ensure wider knowledge. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
