On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 4:29 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 > So it seems the purpose of the proposal was to generate discussion (which it certainly has), but the Workstation WG has not decided what they really want yet. I do get wanting discussion about it. I do not get how it is a proper change request at this point. Seems very much like "We would like to propose a change that we may or may not do", and if the decision is ultimately to not do it, time was wasted. _______________________________________________ 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
