Re: Importance of LVM (was Re: Partitioning criteria revision proposal)

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

 



On 10/25/2012 01:41 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 10/25/2012 08:26 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On this topic...Ric Wheeler came up with some fairly good arguments in
favour of keeping the LVM default and proposed it on the anaconda list
this morning (actually I think the post may not have been approved yet,
but it'll show up soon). Since we're post-freeze now I summarized the
debate into a bug report and nominated it for NTH:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870207

I think it's still true to say that our *original* reasons for
defaulting to LVM don't really hold any more, but Ric made some pretty
decent *current* arguments for keeping that default until we switch to
btrfs-by-default.

First of all this has been known this whole time  Ric is not bringing anything new to the table and I nack to this proposal it's to dam late in the release cycle to change this now and if we change this it means we have to slip another week to properly test anaconda with lvm as default against the alpha and beta criteria
I am under the impression that we've been testing with/without LVM anyway, both scenarios? In any case, it doesn't seem as earthshaking as other developments - it's just making the default be what it's been for some time, and given that there exists documentation for the "lvm enabled case" and not much otherwise it seems like a reasonable thing to do.  I would almost make the case that disabling LVM by default - were it a feature - would require a lot of that backup documentation and info that isn't really there....

Can we please stop messing around with the installer!

JBG




-- 
test mailing list
test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Photo Sharing]     [Yosemite Forum]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux