> Am 27.05.2021 um 00:59 schrieb Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 5:30 AM Peter Boy <pboy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > ... > Whereupon Server SIG/WG perform an evaluation of Btrfs for their use > cases, and decide Btrfs should be the default in a compelling manner, > FESCo will approve it. And this plausibly could still happen for > Fedora 35, if folks really want it to happen. Theoretically, it could. But practically, I don't see it happen. The need for discussion is too great. And not everyone is as convinced as you are that BTRFS is the non-plus-ultra for all possible use cases. > Server SIG can do anything they > want. Red Hat is doing the same. Nevertheless, coordination and cooperation is at least very desirable (in fact, indispensable). And is is not just about who is paying the bills. Beyond this crude economic dimension, Fedora benefits from the reputation of being upstream for RHEL (and vice versa, for sure). A defiant "we can do as we like" is not helpful. > >> I think we have a misunderstanding here. My argument refers to expected hurdles of a possible changeover process, not to technical features. > > My opinion is to not worry about the process in advance of arriving at > the hurdle. You jump over the hurdle at the proper time. The vast > majority of the process is about technical features liabilities. > > ... > And when we address discussion and evidence: > > Not often but sometimes folks ask "where has all the space gone?" > following a Server installation. They're not expecting or maybe not > discovering, that quite a lot is held in reserve in the VG. As said before, I agree with that, at least for the most part. I use BTRFS myself in LVs to use specific capabilities. Still, I'm against converting "with a flick of the wrist," so to speak. It needs careful preparation. And one possible outcome is also, not to switch to BTRFS. I don't think it is a given that a switch is right in any case. That is perhaps the difference between us. >> Again, it’s not about technical properties. We have (or probably had?) an agreement to align (or try to align) Server Edition and Cloud. That was 2 or 3 months ago. Regarding to that agreement, it is a step into the wrong direction. > > Is there a Server or Cloud meeting with minutes that this discussion > happened in? Or email thread you can point to? Michel gave you the link. And there were several brief comments about that in previous meetings and also before that reboot event. And when we address discussion and evidence: What I miss is a prior detailed discussion of this change in cloud WG and coordination with other possible affected areas, e.g. server or CoreOS. Cloud Working Group did not happened for years, then there were a few short, sparsely-attended and content-dry meetings. A range of existing problems, starting with lack of documentation. A hesitancy to make any change currently to the cloud artifacts (expressed by Dusty Mabe at that March meeting, 3). And then out of nowhere the file system conversion, a very central element. To me, it seems like a playground for missionaries to gain ground, certainly not like a considerate and methodical long-term design. _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
