On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 1:45 AM Peter Boy <pboy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Am 27.05.2021 um 00:59 schrieb Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > 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. All I mean by this is to push back on the idea that the proposal for Cloud translates into delaying the decision for Server by 5 or 10 years. Not that Server folks should escalate their discussion. Also, I don't think Btrfs is the end all for all use cases; I gave an example to the contrary in the previous email. There are always trade offs. The conversation should focus on what those tradeoffs are and how much each SIG values them. > > 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. It isn't defiance, it's conviction consistent with Fedora's mission and the four foundations. My working assumption is substantive public discussion, to reveal the pros and cons of the proposal, in order to come to a decision. The proposal is not the decision. > > 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. I agree with all of these things. But from my point of view they are obvious, to the degree that since you're stating them, it makes me wonder whether you think something has happened abruptly, frivolously, or without sufficient care and preparation. In your view should something have occurred before the proposal was submitted that didn't? > 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. I don't agree it happened out of nowhere. It's been floated by various folks over the years, even before Workstation edition switched to Btrfs by default. Fedora has quite a lot of sprawl, it's a diverse community, not all conversations happen on devel@ so it can be easy to draw a conclusion that it's sudden. But that is the whole point of the change proposal process, is to make a broad and grand announcement on the primary development list, expressly because we don't want folks missing big changes. Now is exactly the time to dig into the drawbacks, liabilities, risks of proposals, and weigh them against the proponents' typically strong take in favor of the change or else they probably wouldn't have submitted the proposal in the first place. Take it from me, I really like the adversarial process. I don't mean this in the negative connotation, but rather the legal denotation. We should have a debate. That time is right now, in this thread. And I welcome it. -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ 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
