Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 5:19 PM Justin Forbes <jmforbes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 4:02 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 4:30 PM Justin Forbes <jmforbes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 1:39 PM John M. Harris Jr <johnmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, June 30, 2020 8:22:00 AM MST Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 11:09, Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 10:26 am, Stephen Gallagher
> > > > > > <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > For the record, as this directly affects the Workstation deliverable,
> > > > > > > I will be voting -1 until and unless the Workstation WG votes in
> > > > > > > favor.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, it's a large set of Change owners, but since only two of them are
> > > > > > > Workstation WG members, they are not representative of that group.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Workstation WG hat on:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think there's any need to vote -1 for that reason alone. The
> > > > > > Workstation WG has discussed the change proposal at several meetings
> > > > > > recently (really, we've spent a long time on this), and frankly we were
> > > > > > not making a ton of progress towards reaching a decision either way, so
> > > > > > going forward with the change proposal and moving the discussion to
> > > > > > devel@ to get feedback from a wider audience and from FESCo seemed like
> > > > > > a good idea. Most likely, we'll wind up doing whatever FESCo chooses
> > > > > > here, but unless FESCo were to explicitly indicate intent to override
> > > > > > the Workstation WG, we would not consider a FESCo decision to limit
> > > > > > what the Workstation WG can do with the Workstation product. At least,
> > > > > > my understanding of the power structure FESCo has established is that
> > > > > > the WG can make product-specific decisions that differ from FESCo's
> > > > > > decisions whenever we want, unless FESCo says otherwise (because FESCo
> > > > > > always has final say). That is, if FESCo were to approve btrfs by
> > > > > > default, but Workstation WG were to vote to stick with ext4, then we
> > > > > > would stick with ext4 unless FESCo were to say "no really, you need to
> > > > > > switch to btfs" (which I highly doubt would happen). So I don't see any
> > > > > > reason to vote -1 here out of concern for overriding the WG.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem is that the request as discussed reads as "FESCo says use
> > > > > it for workstation" vs "FESCo has no problem with Workstation saying
> > > > > they want btrfs" or "FESCo says use btrfs as default". Yes it says
> > > > > "desktop variants" but only 1 variant really counts and that is
> > > > > Workstation. So yes, either Workstation agrees to it or it isn't
> > > > > getting voted on. If Workstation can't come to an agreement on it,
> > > > > then the proposal is dead.  Anything else is an end-run and a useless
> > > > > trolling of people to see how many rants LWN counts in its weekly
> > > > > messages.
> > > >
> > > > Well, it's not only Workstation that this proposal is trying to throw btrfs
> > > > on, but the other desktops as well, such as KDE Spin.
> > >
> > > How is that even a thing? Shouldn't a spin maintainer be responsible
> > > for choosing the defaults of their spin?  This proposal seems fairly
> > > absurd in the regard of dictating what other people should do.
> >
> > For what it's worth, I asked spin owners from each one before adding
> > them. That's why the change covers them all, they all assented to it.
> > I am doing all the work for it, but I asked for their approval to be
> > covered under this.
> >
> > Please don't assume such absurd things like that, especially given the
> > list of change owners and listed responsible entities.
> >
>
> I honestly hadn't considered it until it came up that the Workstation
> WG has not come to agreement on this change yet.  Either way, it is my
> belief that the spins should be able to decide what they want to use,
> when they want to use it.   If they have bought in, that's great.
> From a kernel standpoint, the only change being asked here is to make
> btrfs inline instead of a module.  If it is to become the default fs
> for any spin, I don't have a problem with that.

I submitted it because it was agreed to submit it[1]. I would have
waited otherwise.

[1]: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/workstation/workstation.2020-06-25-04.07.log.html

-- 
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux